The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Nature around us agrees with what the Bible asserts. You and I differ as to what we believe nature is saying.

How does nature say pre-marrital sex is wrong? The concept of "marriage" doesn't exist in nature, while concepts like love and companionship do. Creatures who mate for life aren't "married," yet obvious monogomy occurs in nature.

Likewise with homosexuality, it occurs all over nature. What part of nature tells us that it is in fact wrong?

wolfsbane wrote:

It certainly is disobeying the God of the Bible. And nature fits in with what the Bible reveals of Creation's fall.

I'm failing to see that "fit"

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm basing it primarily on what God says, but it is true that nature itself tells us that homosexuality is perverse.

No it doesn't, quite to opposite in fact. Homosexuality occurs all over the place in nature, and not due to a perversion of heterosexual orientation, but as a specific and individual sexual orientation.

wolfsbane wrote:

No, you are illogical. Sex with a woman cannot be equalted with sex with a man, or an animal. Each has their proper sexual partner.

Animal? Where did that come from? You have been watching too much Channel 4

But while you are on the topic, how do you define "proper" sexual partner? I'm not saying an animal is a suitable sexual partner for a human, but probably not for the same reasons you are.

wolfsbane wrote:

Probably explains their other views too - ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches.

I think you will find a lot of Christiants, who read the Bible an awful lot, are "ignorant" of what the Bible teaches in your opinion. Which just re-enforces the idea that the Bible is actually quite relative and subjective. In my opinion ones morality is formed before you read the Bible properly, and then the message of the Bible appears to reflect your initial morality. Which would imply morality is not based on the Bible, but the reading of Bible is based on human morality.

wolfsbane wrote:

Only the grace of God can turn us around so that our desires are to do His will and sin becomes the exception rather than the rule.

Certainly, but the point is why is the Bible an accurate account of what God wants. Surely ones inner voice of compassion and reason would be a better one?

wolfsbane wrote:

That sounds like what the more sincere of them might be doing. But it is crazy - for how can they believe in the God of the Bible if they pick and choose what is to be believed in it? They are believing in a god of their own imaginations.

You talk about the "God of the Bible" as if he is seperate from some other God. There is supposed to be one God, is there not? Is he dependent on the Bible being absolutely correct to exist? If He does exist I doubt a God would be dependent on a book for his existance.

They are believing in the same God the people who wrote the Bible believed in.

If you get a glipse of him, or you see the whole shabang, does it really matter? If you experience Him through the little voice in your head saying "Do the right thing" or in the pages of stories of people from 4000 years ago trying to understand Him, does that matter?

The only thing more the Bible claims to give is direct instructions on what God is supposed to want. But a lot of modern Christians are beginning to see that these "direct instructions" might not be so direct after all.

They struggle to understand what God wants, just as the people of the Bible struggled to understand what God wants. Except my friends would not claim to know for sure, they try to live well, help their fellow men, listen to God's guidence, observe the world he created around us.

Where as the authors of the Bible did and now it has been shown they probably didn't.

But its all the same God.

wolfsbane wrote:

How do they know this about God?

Because they believe He is the goodness in side them. Is He not?

wolfsbane wrote:

Like all other sins, homosexuality is not something God made, but the rebellious actions of sinful man.

You don't know that, that is just want the Bible teaches.

The Bible could be wrong, and considering it conflicts with what we know of nature, and conflicts with the conscience of many, it would seem likely, at least to my Christian friends.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, Christ was quoting from the Old Testament. Old testament and New Testament are both the Word of God.

Then does my point not stand?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

So, while evolution is not a completed jigsaw, we can see that the pieces fit, and appear to be making a picture. Creationists, meanwhile, are forced to get the pieces to sit square against the outside of the box, whatever their shape, and have to bend or distort pieces that don't fit each other.

That is what creationists say of the evolutionary position. They do not allow creation to be considered - that is their square-edge.

In the sense that you use materialism here, science is entirely materialistic. It does not deal with the supernatural for a very simple reason - there are no limits on the power of the supernatural. If there are no limits, there is no explanatory force, so the supernatural explanation is simply not testable. Let me give you an example:

A large rock sits on top of a mountain in Wicklow - it is different from the rock of which the mountain is made. We wish to know how and why it is there. The investigator invokes the supernatural, and says "God put it there". Where do we go from there?

Seems to me to be one possible explanation, just like saying 'The glacier put it there.' Or the natives put it there. We have to ask what the evidence is for any such assertion. If the evidence is missing, the assertion may yet be true but it cannot be offerred as a scientific explanation. On the other hand, if one insisted it was left by glacial deposition and there was no such type of rock in the path where the glaciers came from, that too would be in the same category as the first. Then it turns out that similar rock in sculpted form has been found on other mountain-tops, and we think that this rough form may have been brought there by man and not tooled for some unknown reason. Evidence-driven conclusions.

But what if the Bible spoke of such a rock being deposited there by, say, a great tornado? That this tornado had destroyed much of Ireland 4000 years ago and we had evidence in keeping with such a catastropy? Then the 'God did it' scenario is science. My point is any mechanism - supernatural, natural or man-made - is only scientific if there is evidence to support it. You cannot rule out supernaturalism per se.

If God is the Creator, an entirely materialistic science will be building a picture that is neither more nor less than the reflection of God in his handiwork. If that is so, it ill befits the "Creationist" to quibble, unless, perhaps, they lack confidence that this is so?

We have no problems with the findings of real science. We do with scientism that forbids the intervention of God. Creation in all its complexity is a great statement of the existence of God as its creator.

I'm sure they would. However, we have repeatedly requested that a testable prediction be offered, and it has not been done.

I definitely gave several a long time back - but see 2308 to Son Goku of today.

Yes - science wishes to use the same tools that produced all the technology we see around us today, such as this Internet thing, and washing machines, and vaccines, and all that. Creationists apparently feel that this does not offer a level playing field, or is somehow not a proper scientific test, and that something else, like PR, or law, would produce a better scientific test.

You've lost me there. What problem have creationists with washing-machines?

Look, if you want to win at football, you have to play football. If you have to change the rules, it isn't football. If you want Young Earth Creation scientifically validated, you have to use scientific rules. If you have to change the rules, it isn't science.

I don't think Creationists have any problem with scientific rules. Maybe you mean rules that exclude anything but a materialistic explanation?

Yes, "Creation science" would of necessity be forensic or historical. It would also need to actually be science, which it isn't, and can't be, for the reasons given above re. invocation of the supernatural. Calling it "Creation science" is simply PR.

That could be better said of materialistic science - scientism.

robindch

> Like all other sins, homosexuality is not something God made, but
> the rebellious actions of sinful man.

So, let me get this straight - were I gay and to look at some cute guy whom I fancied, my primary feelings would not, according to you, be love or attraction, but I'd actually be engaging in an act of rebellion against an invisible god? And what about the homosexuality observed in dolphins and other fauna? Are they rebelling too?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

What is disputed, as is obvious, is the translation of the terms arsenokoites and malakos. This is not susceptible to literary criticism - it's a linguistic issue, and there is no-one speaking that language to whom we can refer.

The interpretation of these terms is not in a vacuum. There are the other references to homosexuality Paul makes; there is his treatment of OT morality; there are the other NT authors and their treatment of OT morality. All of these support the homosexuality as sin idea.

Heavens! Perhaps the authors had never read "Gould S.J., and N. Eldredge. 1977: Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology 3, pp. 115-151."? Is that why they think this is news?

This pool and its inhabitants was mentioned there? Or the idea of rapid adaption?

In addition, this highlights the standard lack of primary research by Creationists. The authors set forward, as a given, that the mechanism that allows this rapid adaptation is not genetic evolution. Instead, they say "informed creationists have long stressed that natural selection can easily cause major variation in short time periods, by acting on the created genetic information already present".

Is any attempt made by the authors to test this assertion? No. Again, this is PR, not science, and in PR, you don't need to provide proof, merely a good-sounding knock.

So a prediction is not science, it has to be proved before it is so? As we have not observed macroevolution in action, the theory of evolution is then not science? But as the assertion of the creationists is in line with what has been observed in the lab, e.g. Superbugs not super after all http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp
what other proof should they provide?

On that subject, I am amazed that you think AiG have no burden to provide proof with a publicity statement (because it's "on their website", no less), whereas the "Scientific Establishment" does (and have you looked at their websites?)! Are you unable to detect political knocking when you're doing it? Are you not ashamed?

really quite contemptible, I'm afraid,

Obviously we differ on what we expect from those who publically issue statements designed to rubbish their opponents, and those who respond to them.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Which is interesting, if you consider our discussion about whether Jesus intended to preach to the Gentiles, for which you can offer no evidence from Jesus himself except one extremely obscure passage.

You are confusing what Jesus intended to do personally in His time on earth, and what He intended to be done by His followers. There is no doubt about that. For the first, He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. John 1:11. For the second, He commanded His followers to Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, Matthew 28:19a.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Jesus, a Jew, just saved the Jews? And that the rest of us are goats?

No, I believe what the Bible teaches:
Isaiah 49:6 Indeed He says,
‘ It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant
To raise up the tribes of Jacob,
And to restore the preserved ones of Israel;
I will also give You as a light to the Gentiles,
That You should be My salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

wolfsbane

5uspect said:

And all the bible or any holy book shows are the actions and the ideas of men, wicked, good or otherwise - nothing else. Your assumption that your holy book is the word of a supernatural being is completely untestable.

To the Christian it is not just a theory or presumption. It is a known reality. The truth of it is revealed by God to their heart. As to it being testable to others, that is indeed difficult, as you would expain away fulfilled prophecy as co-incidence or something deliberately engineered by men. Even if we could show that all it asserts about nature and history were true, you could dismiss it as just good history.

If this is your personal belief thats fine until you start to push this as scientific fact.

If it is true, it must be scientific fact.

And this is the problem with creationism distorting facts to fit this completely unfounded view. It is like a group of people claiming the diminutive Homo floresiensis recently discovered in Indonesia is an actual hobbit and proof that the Lord of the Rings is a historical document.

We say the facts support the Biblical view. That is the dispute. Your analogy is pointless - what if I said evolutionism is like someone saying Star Trek is proof of life evolving on other planets?

And this also goes to show the huge amount of interpretation that the bible is open to. Stories like this are bandied about as the word of god and some sort of universal manual for morality, the origins of life and even science when their exact meaning is different in different parts of the world.

Some things are difficult to understand in the Bible, just as in science. But morality is pretty clear. Those who want to validate homosexuality, for example, do so in defiance of or in dishonest handling of the Bible.

However you cannot uncouple your belief form reality when it becomes apparent to everyone else that what you see as only being posible with a supernatural event can be explained through pure rational arguement and obseravtion bases on facts.

That's the point. Evolution is not based on rational argument and observation based on facts, or no more so than creationism. Both seek to offer an explanation that fits the evidence.

How do you cope with such a paradigm shift? Have you ever had to stop and admit that you were wrong in your beliefs? The AiG website seems to revel in the changes in evolutionary theory and yet never questions its unfounded beliefs. Science is willing to review the conclusions drawn from observation and ammend its position in the light of new evidence - religion and creationism cannot.

Both systems change their ideas on the mechanisms involved, etc. Both hold to their basic presuppositions, whether supernatural or materialistic, but modify within that.

When honest evolutionists see that evolution cannot explain our origins, they abandon it for creationism in some form or other. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0622catchpoole.asp

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

I said it because honest believing people who study the bible disagree.

Who are these 'believers'?

wolfsbane

bluewolf said:

I really, really don't see how there can be an antithesis of something that doesn't exist (or is believed not to exist). Or how one can believe in anti-christ without believing in christ. Unless we mean "believing in" as in following as opposed to actual existence...

The believer in Antichrist will not be thinking Antichrist is the opponent of Christ, rather that he is the real Messiah. As Christ put it to the unbelieving Jews, I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive. John 5:43. That is the nature of the delusion God will give them over to, that they should believe the lie.

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

How is Roman Catholicism putting pressure on Christianity?

blue wolf has it right: There are quite a lot of people who think RC is not christianity.

I see, it is presently true that wolfsbane's specific branch of chrisitanity is experiencing increasing persecution from many quarters.

True.

Scofflaw said:

But then, so are the Falun Gong, and atheists in many regimes in many places and many times.

True.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I don't think Creationists have any problem with scientific rules. Maybe you mean rules that exclude anything but a materialistic explanation?

That could be better said of materialistic science - scientism.

I will post at more length later, but, in brief, and bluntly:

Science is materialistic. It does not allow of supernatural explanations. That is science. Science that has given us the technology we have today, and the hope of solutions tomorrow, because it does not seek supernatural explanations.

Under the terms of this science, Creationism is inadmissible as a theory. It is not science. It evokes the supernatural as an explanation, and therefore cannot ever be science.

Scientism is a made-up word, that hopes to convince us of a false dichotomy between "materialistic science" and "true science". There is no such dichotomy. True science is materialistic, and that is a required limitation, not an unfortunate mistake or wicked conspiracy as you seem to believe. There is no other way to do science.

The Bible is a book. It contains a record of events. That record may be materially true or materially false. If that record is materially true, then it will be shown to be true, by ordinary materialistic scientific methods, without evoking the supernatural.

Is this the case? No, it is not. Creationists cannot prove even major features of the Biblical account from the evidence without evoking the supernatural at every hands-turn to account for this or that, without limitation or reason. This should not have to be the case, if the Biblical account is materially true.

Is it possible for the Bible to be materially false and spiritually true? Is a parable materially false and spiritually true? Yes. Are parables used in the Bible? Yes, by the greatest teacher in it. Could Genesis be a parable? Of course.

If I wish to use a drill to make a hole in a piece of wood, I need to limit the action of the drill - otherwise it will skitter around without effect. Without the limitation of materialism, scientific enquiry will skitter around from Creationist explanation to Creationist explanation to Islamic explanation to Torah explanation to Hindu myths without ever advancing, because nothing constrains these explanations except the limitations we are able to place on the Gods - none.

relatively (!) briefly,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

our only disagreement is really about which side of the debate is the delusional one!

Agreed!

There's unfortunately no evidence for it outside the anecdotal, and some evidence to suggest that overall it's a bad thing for a society. As to Columbine - the boys involved were psychopaths (in the literal, psychiatric sense) - I don't see what it has to do with the debate.

I'm thinking of the well-documented great social welfare movements begun by my fellow Evangelicals. Anti-slavery; orphanages; prison-reform, etc.

Just that these boys were very anti-Christian. Maybe that is a psychopathic trait?

Not at all. They are responding to the impression given by Creationists that there is a real debate within science on the issue, which there isn't. The Creationist "case" is not really worth dismissing.

Very convenient, for those seeking to hid the truth.

Amazingly enough, any prole can become a scientist - all you'll need is the ability to think. If you haven't bothered to become a scientist, on the other hand, it's difficult to imagine why you think you're competent to judge science.

Maybe it's the fact that other equally well qualified scientists say I'm being lied to, consciously or unconsciously, by the rest.

Well, that list has Snelling on it, so I don't really give it much credence. Anyway, the point here might be that if all you read is stuff knocking evolution, you might form a slightly biased view of it!

I'm glad to hear both sides.

Also, a scientist is not your "better", as you so ingenuously put it - but they are likely to know more about science than you do, just as a chef will know more about cooking. If you feel you're "excluded", it would be better to study what you're attacking than cry foul.

I have two reasons to question the theory of evolution:
1. The Bible teaches otherwise.
2. Scientists whose integrity I value deny it is so.

That gives me a good ground to question the opinion of evolutionists. To that is added the attempts to suppress discussion in scientific circles, and my truth-detectors are fully lit-up. I may be scientifically ignorant, but I can still tell a hawk from a handsaw.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

To the Christian it is not just a theory or presumption. It is a known reality. The truth of it is revealed by God to their heart. As to it being testable to others, that is indeed difficult, as you would expain away fulfilled prophecy as co-incidence or something deliberately engineered by men. Even if we could show that all it asserts about nature and history were true, you could dismiss it as just good history.
...

If it is true, it must be scientific fact.

it is not a known reality it is a blind belief. Defiine your definition of truth. How is your christian "truth" more true than other "truths" such as Muslim "truth" or Aborgional "truth"? They are all equally as true and as false as each other. Oh the other had it is indeniably true that the sun is bigger and hotter than the earth. Evolotion is a scientific truth that has been accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It has acheived this beause it, as a scientific theory, is able to explain and predict life far better than any other theory available. Your fulfilled prophecy is nothing more than wishful thinking.

wolfsbane wrote:

We say the facts support the Biblical view. That is the dispute. Your analogy is pointless - what if I said evolutionism is like someone saying Star Trek is proof of life evolving on other planets?

But your are saying exactly this. The bible is the "proof" of your religous beliefs and you refuse to provide evidence that the bible is true other than your arguement from personal credulity. You then build your creationist beliefs on this blind faith and only then do you even consider looking for evidence which you do a poor (some would say deliberate) job of misrepresenting.

wolfsbane wrote:

Some things are difficult to understand in the Bible, just as in science. But morality is pretty clear. Those who want to validate homosexuality, for example, do so in defiance of or in dishonest handling of the Bible.

So the bible is clear in justifying the sending of bears to eat children and the rape of women over the rape of men? If morality is a product of the bible then we would be living in a pretty nasty world. I cannot find any logical reason to have a problem with gay people yet you seem to feel that these otherwise "normal" people are sinners in front of god because they may love each other for the sole reason that you found it in a book. You discriminate against homosexual people in defiance of logic.

wolfsbane wrote:

That's the point. Evolution is not based on rational argument and observation based on facts, or no more so than creationism. Both seek to offer an explanation that fits the evidence.

You're lieing, evolution is based purely on rational arguements, this has been shown again and again. Creationism however ignores vast amounts of data that contradict its beliefs while using incorrect assumptions and misrepresented work to fit this so called evidence to a biblical conclusion. Science is capable of putting its hands up and say this is wrong we need to ammend this theory creationism is only capable of saying oh the materialistic scientists got it wrong, hence god exists.

wolfsbane wrote:

Both systems change their ideas on the mechanisms involved, etc. Both hold to their basic presuppositions, whether supernatural or materialistic, but modify within that.

No, science is capable of modifying or replacing the basic presupposition, creationism is not. Your will never hear a creationist claim to have found proof that god doesn't exist. However (in your words) a "materialist" alternative theory to evolution by natural selection which explained life better than evolution would be the biggest scientific breakthrough possibly ever. Some have tried to propose such theories and all have failed. Evolutionary theory has been modified quite a bit since Darwin, however the fundalmental concept of evolution by natural selection is still there because for the most part Darwin got it right.

wolfsbane wrote:

When honest evolutionists see that evolution cannot explain our origins, they abandon it for creationism in some form or other.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0622catchpoole.asp

Honest? Maybe, but I think this guy needs to talk to a psychologist. Just because one scientist undergoes a religous experience when suffering from the following symptoms (wikipedia) doesn't mean evolution is wrong and god exists:
* a high fever from 39 °C to 40 °C (103 °F to 104 °F) that rises slowly
* chills
* bradycardia (slow heart rate)
* weakness
* diarrhea
* headaches
* myalgia (muscle pain), not to be confused with the more severe muscle pain in Dengue fever, known as "Breakbone fever."
* lack of appetite
* constipation
* stomach pains
* in some cases, a rash of flat, rose-colored spots called "rose spots"
* in some cases, loss of hair resulting from the prolonged high fever
* extreme symptoms such as intestinal perforation or hemorrhage, delusions and confusion are also possible.

All very nasty. If this guy was suffering from AIDS and he asked the almighty to save him and suddenly the HIV virus left his body then I would take notice. However he recovered from a relatively easily curable disease and hardly evidence of divine intervention.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

That depends on how you define "cult", but the point is certainly arguable and I would politely suggest that you take a look, for example, at how many line items apply to your creationist beliefs when checked against the "BITE" mind-control model, particularly in the information and thought-control topics:

I don't see any problem with creationism there. No more so than with their evolutionary opponents. Had you something in mind?

Interestingly, creationism doesn't really register as an emotive controller at all. Presumably this is why you and others regularly bring up the unrelated topics of Mao/Stalin/Hitler/etc in an attempt to fill this gap?

The logical outworking of atheistic materialism, of which evolution is an essential and driving factor, is only 'unrelated' in the minds of those who do not wish to see.

And having sat through two hours of Ken Ham in UCD last year, frankly he sounded just like a cult leader to me.

I'm sure creationists can say the same of any anti-creationist leaders - Dawkins, etc.

This is not an answer. AiG don't link to any scientific organizations because AiG is not in the business of broadening the minds of the people who use it, but rather in the more profitable business of selling propaganda, which it does very well indeed.

OK, that could be a reason for AiG's failure to link. But why then does BCS have extensive links? Are these creationists looking to broaden their reader's minds? Could AiG's reason be they are just interested in promoting the truth, without debate? I favour the BCS position, but each to his own.

It's been a while since TO has been mentioned here, but it's worth pointing out (again) that every dishonest claim that AiG makes is comprehensively rebutted at this website:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Out of interest, have you ever looked through this list?

Yes, it is a valuable resource. I have not read most of them, but I have many. It covers many of the contentious issues, even if it is biased in its handling of creationism. As you might expect, I did not find it convincing in its argument or logic.

Here is another TO - True Origin: http://trueorigin.org/

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

How does nature say pre-marrital sex is wrong? The concept of "marriage" doesn't exist in nature, while concepts like love and companionship do. Creatures who mate for life aren't "married," yet obvious monogomy occurs in nature.

Marriage applies only to humans. Nature shows us that non-marital sex has bad consequences - just look around you at today's permissive society.

Likewise with homosexuality, it occurs all over nature. What part of nature tells us that it is in fact wrong?

So does murder, rape, etc. Occurance doesn't validate anything. The natural diseases spread by homosexual behaviour is one indicator of its perversity.

I'm failing to see that "fit"

The bible tells us that all nature fell into 'bondage' when Man sinned. Death and suffering and perversions of all sorts entered the world. That is what we see today.

No it doesn't, quite to opposite in fact. Homosexuality occurs all over the place in nature, and not due to a perversion of heterosexual orientation, but as a specific and individual sexual orientation.

You know that how?

Animal? Where did that come from? You have been watching too much Channel 4

You must be very sheltered in your knowledge of the world. Bestiality is a common perversion in places where normal sex is no so readily available, or among types given over to such practices.

But while you are on the topic, how do you define "proper" sexual partner? I'm not saying an animal is a suitable sexual partner for a human, but probably not for the same reasons you are.

Man/woman; male animal/female animal.

I think you will find a lot of Christiants, who read the Bible an awful lot, are "ignorant" of what the Bible teaches in your opinion. Which just re-enforces the idea that the Bible is actually quite relative and subjective. In my opinion ones morality is formed before you read the Bible properly, and then the message of the Bible appears to reflect your initial morality. Which would imply morality is not based on the Bible, but the reading of Bible is based on human morality.

One can be an unbeliever and still honestly say what the Bible teaches. One may not agree with it, but honesty demands one accurately report the facts. Your 'Christian' friends are not being honest.

Speaking for myself, a lot of what the Bible teaches was counter to my first morality. I had to turn from that when I became a Christian.

Certainly, but the point is why is the Bible an accurate account of what God wants. Surely ones inner voice of compassion and reason would be a better one?

Only if one can say that the inner voice is God's voice. What reason can one have for saying that, if it is saying contrary to the Bible, the only source that speaks of the God of the Bible? One's inner voice then cannot be the God revealed in the Bible. It is someone else, self, demon, whatever.

You talk about the "God of the Bible" as if he is seperate from some other God. There is supposed to be one God, is there not? Is he dependent on the Bible being absolutely correct to exist? If He does exist I doubt a God would be dependent on a book for his existance.

Yes, there is only one true God. But there are many pretenders. God would exist without the Bible, for He was there before it was written. But it is His gift to mankind, the only place where He reveals Himself fully enough for us to believe and be saved.

They are believing in the same God the people who wrote the Bible believed in.

You cannot belive in the God of the Bible and believe in a God has told us untruths. If the Bible asserts untruths, it is not the work of the God of truth declared there. You either have an inerrant Bible and the God whom it reveals, or that God does not exist.

If you get a glipse of him, or you see the whole shabang, does it really matter? If you experience Him through the little voice in your head saying "Do the right thing" or in the pages of stories of people from 4000 years ago trying to understand Him, does that matter?

It matters if He says it does. If you are piloting into Heathrow and think it does not matter whether you hear all the traffic-controler says or just a snippet, then you are heading for the flames. So too with our spiritual destination.

The only thing more the Bible claims to give is direct instructions on what God is supposed to want. But a lot of modern Christians are beginning to see that these "direct instructions" might not be so direct after all.

10,000 feet and descending rapidly.

They struggle to understand what God wants, just as the people of the Bible struggled to understand what God wants. Except my friends would not claim to know for sure, they try to live well, help their fellow men, listen to God's guidence, observe the world he created around us.

Ignore His word, disobey His instructions...7,500 feet and descending rapidly.

Where as the authors of the Bible did and now it has been shown they probably didn't.

That's right, ignore the autopilot. As a sophisticated pilot, you know what you are doing. 5000 feet and descending rapidly.

But its all the same God.

Knishna, Allah, the god of the Mormons, J.ws, the God of the Bible? Don't you think their defining characteristics must mean they are not the same? E.g, Many gods; One Person god; Triune God.

Because they believe He is the goodness in side them. Is He not?

Not if he is based on a lie. Not if He is different from the One delcared in the Bible. They may wish to assert their internal god is the one true god, but they cannot logically claim he is the same one revealed in the Bible. Their god or the Bible one must go.

You don't know that, that is just want the Bible teaches.

Yes, that is how I know it.

The Bible could be wrong, and considering it conflicts with what we know of nature, and conflicts with the conscience of many, it would seem likely, at least to my Christian friends.

As I continue to point out, they cannot be Christians if they deny the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is the definer of Christianity.

Then does my point not stand?

I thought you implied the OT was somehow not as much the word of God as the NT. That Christ's quote from it had no weight for that reason.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

So, let me get this straight - were I gay and to look at some cute guy whom I fancied, my primary feelings would not, according to you, be love or attraction, but I'd actually be engaging in an act of rebellion against an invisible god? And what about the homosexuality observed in dolphins and other fauna? Are they rebelling too?

Both. Just like I would, if lusting after a woman other than my wife. Only homosexuality is unnaturally perverse.

As to animals, there fallenness is not moral like ours, just a distortion of what they were originally meant to be. As in their predatory nature.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If I wish to use a drill to make a hole in a piece of wood, I need to limit the action of the drill - otherwise it will skitter around without effect. Without the limitation of materialism, scientific enquiry will skitter around from Creationist explanation to Creationist explanation to Islamic explanation to Torah explanation to Hindu myths without ever advancing, because nothing constrains these explanations except the limitations we are able to place on the Gods - none.

Rubbish. The only constraint necessary is evidence in support of the assertion. Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism, and we say it supports our case better than yours. You deny that. That is the debate. Whether the scientists who hold to creation/evolution are as open to the facts as they ought to be. To rule our the idea that God could have created a mature universe 6000 years ago, without examining the evidence is pure rationalist bigotry.

But I know your're scared. To have a God to give account to is a frightening thing. So I understand your vehemence.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Occurance doesn't validate anything.

Oh dear

wolfsbane wrote:

Man/woman; male animal/female animal.

So you define this as a sexual relationship that can produce offspring.
What about asexual animals? Some lizards can essentially clone themselves by producing fully developed females from unfertilized eggs. Hypothetically it may even be possible for a sexual encounter between two female reptiles to trigger a female into producing such clones.

wolfsbane wrote:

It matters if He says it does. If you are piloting into Heathrow and think it does not matter whether you hear all the traffic-controler says or just a snippet, then you are heading for the flames. So too with our spiritual destination.
...
10,000 feet and descending rapidly.

...
Ignore His word, disobey His instructions...7,500 feet and descending rapidly.

...
That's right, ignore the autopilot. As a sophisticated pilot, you know what you are doing. 5000 feet and descending rapidly.

Rather poor choice of analogy considering the two crashes recently in Asia.
The thing is tho, like religion airplanes are man made. However our rather recent accomplistment of powered flight have obvious and undeniable consequences when things go wrong. If an aircraft crashes it is true that it is likely people will die. You cannot say your superstition is true - you can't show the consequences of not following it.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Rubbish. The only constraint necessary is evidence in support of the assertion. Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism, and we say it supports our case better than yours. You deny that. That is the debate. Whether the scientists who hold to creation/evolution are as open to the facts as they ought to be. To rule our the idea that God could have created a mature universe 6000 years ago, without examining the evidence is pure rationalist bigotry.

But I know your're scared. To have a God to give account to is a frightening thing. So I understand your vehemence.

You say the evidence supports your view better but you fail to show it. To believe that the universe was created mature 6000 years ago in the face of all the evidence to the contary is similar to a child believing milk comes from the supermarket.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

But I know your're scared. To have a God to give account to is a frightening thing. So I understand your vehemence.

Frightening? Worse than knowing that I, and everyone I've ever loved, and everyone I will ever love, will all just end? That everyone who died is just dead, inanimate, no longer moving, like a dead dog in a ditch? That there's no-one in charge? That the wicked flourish, and the good die, and there's no balancing act? That anyone can just die, or be hurt, or be broken, and there's no reason, no redress, no complaint, no justice, because stuff just happens? That whole lives can be wasted because of a mistake, or the lack of a bit of luck, or the wrong decision, and there's no point?

Honestly, you're sheltering behind the legs of your father-god, refusing to face the world alone, and you think your child's nightmare of "giving account" to your dad is the worst possible thing?

If there is a God to whom we all must render account, then even if I am damned, it will be hard for me to be truly unhappy, because I will know that there is a chance that someone I love has gone to Heaven, and because there will have actually been some point. No, it's not frightening, wolfsbane, it's a comforting idea, which is why you cling to it.

If I am vehement, and I am, it's because bit by bit, stone by stone, science is out there building a picture of the universe, while you hide in your cupboard, waiting for your daddy and telling us we'll be sorry when he comes home.

annoyed,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

The natural diseases spread by homosexual behaviour is one indicator of its perversity.

Natural diseases spread by unnatural acts indicate the perversity of homosexual behavior. This is very confusing don't you think? Are you by any chance referring to AIDs which, correct me if I am wrong, came about as a result of the unnatural act of eating Monkey meat?

ISAW

Asiaprod wrote:

Natural diseases spread by unnatural acts indicate the perversity of homosexual behavior. This is very confusing don't you think? Are you by any chance referring to AIDs which, correct me if I am wrong, came about as a result of the unnatural act of eating Monkey meat?

Indeed the spread of AIDS has little or nothing to do with homosexuality. It is mostly spread by hetrosexuals including hetrosexual intravenious drug users. In fact while early occurances of HIV were in the homosexual community on the Us West coast this community did more to combat it than heterosexuals. Clearly the idea that HIV was a plague on gays sent by god is preposterous! If it was true then surely God would see to it that only homosexuals got it?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I think you will find a lot of Christiants, who read the Bible an awful lot, are "ignorant" of what the Bible teaches in your opinion. Which just re-enforces the idea that the Bible is actually quite relative and subjective. In my opinion ones morality is formed before you read the Bible properly, and then the message of the Bible appears to reflect your initial morality. Which would imply morality is not based on the Bible, but the reading of Bible is based on human morality.

Indeed one could ask if one never read the Bible could one be a good christian. In fact Christ or the Apostles never read the Bible. Christ is only recorded in the Bible of writing something on one occasion.

Certainly, but the point is why is the Bible an accurate account of what God wants. Surely ones inner voice of compassion and reason would be a better one?

I wonder what the early christians used for five centuries when they didnt have the Bible?

You don't know that, that is just want the Bible teaches.

I would dispute this. where does the Bible say homosexuality is evil?

By the way as regards you constant argument that what occurs in nature is right e.g. homosexuality, I would refer you to Rhesus babies. they are natural but they go against nature. A genetic throwback.

The Bible could be wrong, and considering it conflicts with what we know of nature, and conflicts with the conscience of many, it would seem likely, at least to my Christian friends.

and rhesus babies are "natural"? Is their evolution "wrong"?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Nature shows us that non-marital sex has bad consequences

How, since marriage doesn't exist in nature?

wolfsbane wrote:

The natural diseases spread by homosexual behaviour is one indicator of its perversity.

There are no natural diseases spread by homosexual behaviour. The only diseases are spread by sexual behaviour, being homosexual makes little difference.

wolfsbane wrote:

You know that how?

Science.

wolfsbane wrote:

Bestiality is a common perversion in places where normal sex is no so readily available, or among types given over to such practices.

Beastiality has nothing to do with homosexuality, and is actually not that common.

wolfsbane wrote:

Man/woman; male animal/female animal.

And how is that a "proper" partner?

wolfsbane wrote:

but honesty demands one accurately report the facts.

The "facts" of the Bible are just your interpretation of it. For every fact you can find you can find something to counter it. It comes down to which parts you put special emphasis on and which you don't

wolfsbane wrote:

One's inner voice then cannot be the God revealed in the Bible.

True, but then who says the portrait of God revealed in the Bible is an accurate portrait of the real God. As I said, there is only one God (if you believe in a God to start with). If the Bible is wrong that God still exists, His existance is not dependent on the people who wrote the Bible understanding Him properly

wolfsbane wrote:

But it is His gift to mankind, the only place where He reveals Himself fully enough for us to believe and be saved.

But you don't know that. It is just your belief. My Christian friends would disagree in the extent that he revealed himself in the Bible. They believe that Jesus existed and that he was the living God. But they accept that the Bible is just humanities attempt to understand God, and as such is not without flaws and errors.

wolfsbane wrote:

You cannot belive in the God of the Bible and believe in a God has told us untruths.

You don't have to. They believe that the men who wrote the Bible were attempting to weave their understanding of God around their own lives, just as people do today. Some people believe God instructs them to stand on street corners with signs that say "God Hates Fags". I'd imagine that 4000 years ago some believed exactly the same thing, and as such such silly morality found its way into the Bible. That does not mean God actually wants this.

wolfsbane wrote:

If the Bible asserts untruths, it is not the work of the God of truth declared there.

No, it is the work of men attempting to understand the wishes of God, men who are fallable and who can make mistakes, just like the men of today.

Look at how many contradictions are present in the many branches of Christianity today. They can't all be correct, since so many parts conflict with others. Naturally some will be wrong. They are all trying to understand the wishes of God. It is natural to assume that the men that wrote the Bible were attempting to do exactly the same thing.

wolfsbane wrote:

You either have an inerrant Bible and the God whom it reveals, or that God does not exist.

There is only one God wolfbane, He either exist or he doesn't. I think he would be a little insulted if you proclaimed that his existance is wholely dependent on the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

It matters if He says it does.

Thats my point. If someone is touched by God through their conscience that is just as valid as if someone reads the Bible, is it not?

wolfsbane wrote:

10,000 feet and descending rapidly.

Only if you assume the Bible is the air traffic control. If it is just a guy in a field with a walky talky telling you the airport is over there when you can clearly see it isn't, its over there, who are you going to believe, your own eyes or what some nut case in a field pretending to be the air traffic controller?

wolfsbane wrote:

That's right, ignore the autopilot. As a sophisticated pilot, you know what you are doing. 5000 feet and descending rapidly.

The Bible isn't the autopilot, ones conscience is the autopilot. If the autopilot is telling you "Mountain! Mountain! Pull up! Pull up!" yet the voice in your ear piece is saying "nope, you are fine keep going" who are you going to believe, your own instruments or a voice that could just be a nut in a field.

wolfsbane wrote:

Knishna, Allah, the god of the Mormons, J.ws, the God of the Bible? Don't you think their defining characteristics must mean they are not the same? E.g, Many gods; One Person god; Triune God.

Well if you believe there are lots of different Gods out there that fine. Most people are monotheistic, they believe in one God, including my religous friends. I personally don't believe in any gods.

wolfsbane wrote:

Not if He is different from the One delcared in the Bible.

Is it not more likely that the conflicting part of the Bible is based on a mistake (not a lie, a genuine mistake)

wolfsbane wrote:

They may wish to assert their internal god is the one true god, but they cannot logically claim he is the same one revealed in the Bible. Their god or the Bible one must go.

To them there is only one God wolfsbane. To them the Bible is simply an attempt by men of 4000 years ago to understand Him, just as people today struggle to understand Him.

You keep saying that if they don't accept the Bible as all correct they must reject God. You have it back to front. They believe in God, that bit comes first. Then they see that the Bible as an attempt to understand him, just as they attempt to understand Him. And as such it can be flawed, and make mistakes, just as people of today can be flawed and make mistakes.

They don't need to reject an god because their belief in God came before any ideas in the Bible. They would still believe in God if the Bible never existed. They don't believe in God because it was written in the Bible.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, that is how I know it.

And you know the Bible is correct because....?

wolfsbane wrote:

As I continue to point out, they cannot be Christians if they deny the Bible is the word of God. The Bible is the definer of Christianity.

No, belief in Jesus is the definer of Christianity. The Bible (the NT at least) is an attempt by those around him to understand his message. It seems illogical to refuse to apply common sense and reason to the Bible as you would any other reports of events or persons. People make mistakes. If something sounds silly, goes against the little voice in ones head, or just doesn't make sense, its probably a mistake.

wolfsbane wrote:

I thought you implied the OT was somehow not as much the word of God as the NT. That Christ's quote from it had no weight for that reason.

No I stated that the notion of love is not the reason for marriage in the Old Testment. Marriage in the old testement is about property and economics.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

By the way as regards you constant argument that what occurs in nature is right e.g. homosexuality, I would refer you to Rhesus babies. they are natural but they go against nature. A genetic throwback.

How is a baby with Rhesus disease sinful?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Rubbish. The only constraint necessary is evidence in support of the assertion. Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism, and we say it supports our case better than yours. You deny that. That is the debate. Whether the scientists who hold to creation/evolution are as open to the facts as they ought to be. To rule our the idea that God could have created a mature universe 6000 years ago, without examining the evidence is pure rationalist bigotry.

Let's dispose of a pretension of yours. You don't actually want science to "consider the supernatural". You want science to consider your specific supernatural explanation, and have no interest in any other, because you believe them to be wrong, and yours to be right.

Unfortunately, you are in a minority sect of a single religion, so I can't see how your supernatural explanation has to be considered any more than the next one. I know, you say you're right. And so does the sect next to you, and the religion next to them. None of you have any less certainty than the others, and none of you have any scientific proof. Until you've sorted out your differences, why should science pick one of your many competing explanations to give greater adherence to? Particularly since there is nothing whatsoever stopping you from carrying on scientific research according to your own world model.

So, let us know when Creation Science creates something useful, like a prayer-powered car, won't you?

not holding my breath,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Rubbish. The only constraint necessary is evidence in support of the assertion. Creationism has the same evidence as evolutionism, and we say it supports our case better than yours. You deny that. That is the debate.

The only way the evidence "supports" Young Earth Creationism is if you ignore 99.9% of it, which is what JC does when he claims that all dating systems, ALL OF THEM, are inaccurate and give incorrect results.

The YEC claim is that basically every date that has ever been established to be over 10,000 years old in the last 200 years is a mistake. Which is a bit of an illogical and silly claim. If they are all a mistake then how come independent dating of objects or events give similar dates?

robindch

> let us know when Creation Science creates something useful, like
> a prayer-powered car?

One can only suspect that it would work as well as prayer-powered medicine...

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

See Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=329

Other articles relating to predictions include this, especially the section Predictions or ‘postdictions’? http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp


See the section A ‘good theory’ because it’s ‘widely accepted’? in http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter3.asp, especially where Scientific American acknowledges Some anti-evolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes).


Obviously we can't re-run the whole thing, so we look for evidence consistent with either old or young. See Evidence for a Young World
by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., ICR associate professor of physics in http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

I meant to comment on this earlier. Again, while what is claimed appears to be science, it is not. The predictions made are (a) not unique to Creationism, and therefore cannot be used to test it, (b) are so vaguely stated as to be almost impossible to disprove, and (c) are not derived from the Biblical account except in the most indirect way.

For example, the claim that Voyager II's magnetic field measurements support Creationism -

(a) a claim that the gas planets lack a solid core is not unique to Creationism,
(b) the author claims validation on the basis of the results not being above his predicted maximum value, and being within a couple of orders of magnitude (much the same as claiming to be right on the figure of 250 when your actual guess was "somewhere between 10 and 1000 but no more than 100,000"),
and
(c) the author claims to derive his theory from the fact that the material God used in Creation was water, and that the gas planets therefore do not have solid centres - which entirely ignores the fact that the Earth is not largely water, and is a "derivation" from Genesis that can at any desired time be changed.

This is pseudo-science, barely at the level of competent science fiction.

regards,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

How is a baby with Rhesus disease sinful?

i didnt claim it was sinful. the pouint is about whether we evolve to "better" beings. Or even that we were created as biologically perfect. The fact that Rhesus babies exist shows our immune system has a genetic (or if you prefer a "design" flaw but why would God build in a flaw). It is similar to the appendix which is redundant except in this case the system actually attacks and tries to kill us rather than sit there and do nothing.

I am just asking if we were designed perfect why is it we have redundancies and imperfections?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

i didnt claim it was sinful. the pouint is about whether we evolve to "better" beings.

Well the term "better" has very little meaning in the context of evolution. If by better you mean better adapted to the current environment, then we do.

ISAW wrote:

Or even that we were created as biologically perfect.

Was never quite sure what creationsist mean by that (not saying you are a creationists). How is "biologically perfect" defined. Perfect with reguard to what exactly?

ISAW wrote:

I am just asking if we were designed perfect why is it we have redundancies and imperfections?

Ok, sorry I thought the question was directed at me.