Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
Great episode of Horizon just finished that went into all the funny ways our brain constructs models of the world around us based on sensory perception.
One of the craziest illusion to experience I felt was the McGurk effect.
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2010/01/synesthesia_and_the_mcgurk_eff.php
Listen to the second word the guy says watching him and the listen to it looking away or with your eyes close.
Even when you know it is an illusion you cannot not hear the word incorrectly when you watch his lips. That is the word you brain says you heard.
I mention all this because while not directly related (the program dealt mainly with sensory perception) it shows just how fragile our perceptions of the world can be and how much of our perceptions are constructed in the brain rather than based on accurate readings of the outside world.
Something for Wolfsbane and others to consider when they say they know what they believe is true because they worked it out for themselves based on their own personal assessment.0 -
I mention all this because while not directly related (the program dealt mainly with sensory perception) it shows just how fragile our perceptions of the world can be and how much of our perceptions are constructed in the brain rather than based on accurate readings of the outside world.
Hhhhmmm, very interesting alright. But all that has been shown by this experiment is that a deliberately false video laid over a true audio will result in a mis-perception of the audio. But taking out the false visual will easily fix the problem, or just leaving the original video intact will result in our perceptions to work as they ought to. My point is that 99.99999999% of the time what we perceive to be genuine audio along with genuine video will make sense to our perception of what message is being conveyed. Deliberately fudging them just adds confusion and of course will result in our perceptions being wrong.
To say that our perceptions cannot be relied upon to form an accurate picture of what we observe based on experiments which are designed to deliberately deceive our perception is IMO not really a good basis for deducing that our perceptions are not always right. Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perceptions are not always right, but using deliberately false methods to show this is not a true reflection of what actually takes place in nature.
E.G. Our perception that the Sun goes around the Earth is not a deliberate cosmic deception set up to deceive our perception. This is simply how we perceive it to be. We can only proceed in science by assuming that what we are perceiving to be the case is true unless it can be positively shown by physical evidence that that is actually not the case - enter Copernicus (Theory) and Galileo (Physical evidence to back up the theory).
All this experiment shows - all be it by deliberately overlaying false visual data - is that our perceptions are not always right, but we already knew that.0 -
Soul Winner wrote: »Hhhhmmm, very interesting alright. But all that has been shown by this experiment is that a deliberately false video laid over a true audio will result in a mis-perception of the audio. But taking out the false visual will easily fix the problem, or just leaving the original video intact will result in our perceptions to work as they ought to. My point is that 99.99999999% of the time what we perceive to be genuine audio along with genuine video will make sense to our perception of what message is being conveyed. Deliberately fudging them just adds confusion and of course will result in our perceptions being wrong.
It has notion really to do with the percentage of the time, it is the short cut that matters.
If you watch that video 100 times then a 100% of the time you will see the same effect.
You can't help that, your brain has evolved that way as a short cut to help you quickly process language rather than 100% accurately process language.Soul Winner wrote: »To say that our perceptions cannot be relied upon to form an accurate picture of what we observe based on experiments which are designed to deliberately deceive our perception is IMO not really a good basis for deducing that our perceptions are not always right.
Of course it is. It demonstrates that you cannot help it if your brain is hardwired to make some unsupported jump in perception because they speed up processing of information irrespective of how true they are.
If you want to know how we evolved a brain to believe in religion when it isn't true ask yourself the same question here, how did we evolve a brain to do this when it isn't what is happening.Soul Winner wrote: »Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perceptions are not always right, but using deliberately false methods to show this is not a true reflection of what actually takes place in nature.
You seem to be focusing on this "deliberately false" aspect a lot. These are experiments to highlight the issue. The person is not having their brain effected in anyway from an external source. They aren't hitting them on the head and then saying look at this.Soul Winner wrote: »All this experiment shows - all be it by deliberately overlaying false visual data - is that our perceptions are not always right, but we already knew that.
Well no actually we didn't, if we did there would be no theists left in the world.
People put far too much trust in their own perceptions, particularly in areas we know the brain makes short cuts or has evolved particularly habits. People still do this. You can tell someone the brain tricks itself into perceiving agents in nature in times of stress and a theists will say that might be what is happening to other people but it isn't happening to me. You can tell someone that the brain is very bad at judging probability and tends to greatly over estimate the unlikelihood of events that they consider significant, and theists will say that might be what is happening to other people but it isn't happening to me.
etc etc0 -
I'm interpreting it in the light of all the evidence. You wish to limit the evidence to the Genesis passage, but as I've pointed out, all of God's word is to be consulted. We would not treat the teaching of an historian, a politician or a scientist so narrowly. We would look at all they had to say about the subject.It is clearly contradictory. God did not say Satan will be forever associated with a degraded and dangerous beast. He said to the snake "because you have done this". You are attempting to re-interpret genesis.
_________________________________________________________________
Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. 26 Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.0 -
Wicknight said:
Correct. I assume you too are capable of recognising big differences in probabilities. Or maybe you deny that anyone can make any sort of judgement, that it all might be imaginary and nothing can be known?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why does answered prayer confirm the reality of God, rather than just a happy coincidence? Because the coincidence would be astronomically unlikely, especially as such happen more than once.
And that assessment rests solely on your judgement correct?
No, only God and His prophets and apostles were infallible. But all of us can know some things with certainty.So you believed you were infallible before you started praying?
It would be amazing if true. Since it's wishful thinking, it's no so amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But as you hold to unintelligent-evolution, I understand why you allow the coincidence option.
Well it is funny you mention coincidences. What are the odds that all scientific theories that contradict YEC creationism in the last 100 years have successfully predicted observations yet are so how wrong.
No more highly than the average person. I do believe most of us know when we hit our thumbs with a hammer, or kiss our lover's lips. If you are confused about which is the nicest, you do need medical help.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Answers to prayer are not material.
No but your brain is. The bits of your brains that attempted to work out that the "coincidence would be astronomically unlikely" are.
You must think quite highly of yourself and your judgement.
I've already said it is not a matter of common or even unusual coincidences.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The alternative would be to believe in millions of people experiencing astounding coincidences in answer to prayer.
Yes. You appreciate that praying to Zeus and Allah produces the same results. People do experience coincidences every day. We also experience far more near coincidences but since we don't notice them we don't remember them.
That would be interesting indeed. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant passages?It is your brain that is at fault here, rather than God. You don't need to get to the point of testing or not testing God. We can easily test the human brain and easily explain why you believe in "astounding coincidences"
There is a ton of popular science books explaining coincidence and how our brain processes chance. I suggest you pick one up and have a read.
So no one can accurately assess probability?Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We are not talking vague requests and vague answers. I find that just unbelievable.
I know. That is a fault with your brain, which has evolved to pattern match not accurately assess probability.
So astounding coincidences don't happen if they cannot be externally measured? The person who knows the circumstances in detail is unable to recognise a 50-50 chance from a Million-One? What faith in materialism!Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If your knowledge corresponds with reality each time, why would you demand further proof? Using your material example, if you knew the correct measurement just by looking at the distance, and your figure was repeatedly confirmed by reality (the actual distance as measured or used), why would you continue to doubt it?
I wouldn't. But I'm pretty sure you have never externally measured the astounding coincidences that lead you to conclude in God other than asking other people do they share in this belief.
Yes, I see you do think no one is able to assess probability. Weird!Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
By listening to and reading their sermons, lectures, testimonies. They don't make a secret of it. We gladly tell of how God has revealed Himself to us.
See. None of that is external to your own poor personal assessment skills (and by you I mean humanity, I'm not singling you out specifically)
I'm afraid it is you who ignore the reality. If someone told you God was going to rain on you every day for a year, but wherever you did not go would experience normal weather, when it happened you would tell yourself you were imagining it.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But we don't ignore any reality.
Yes actually you do. You ignore reality in the same way a teenager ignores than the girl he has a crush on doesn't like him, or the way a married man ignores than his wife is probably cheating on him.
I can see confirmation bias a danger in low-level coincidence, but not in remarkable and repeated occurrences. To suggest otherwise is downright silly - or determinedly in denial.You ignore reality by only going on what you and other believers have personally assessed as being true, and since we already know the brain is bad at this, and since we already know that we are far more likely to see agency in nature than not even when it doesn't exist, and since we know we are poor at measuring the odds of coincidence and very prone to confirmation bias, you ignore reality.
_________________________________________________________________
2 Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm interpreting it in the light of all the evidence. You wish to limit the evidence to the Genesis passage, but as I've pointed out, all of God's word is to be consulted. We would not treat the teaching of an historian, a politician or a scientist so narrowly. We would look at all they had to say about the subject.
So are you saying "because you have done this... (etc.)" should not be taken literally, and should instead be interpreted in light of all the evidence?0 -
It should be taken as it was meant - a literal message to the snake, but a higher (more important) message to Satan. Both/and, not either/or.So are you saying "because you have done this... (etc.)" should not be taken literally, and should instead be interpreted in light of all the evidence?
Not that the Scripture doesn't use metaphor, etc. But we must be honest with the text - we cannot say it's metaphor just because the meaning doesn't suit us. We take all of what God says on the subject into consideration. If He means it literally only, then its literal. If He means it metaphorically only, then it's metaphor. If He means it to be understood on two levels, then that's how we must receive it.
We oughtn't to be pedants at any time, but especially not when dealing with sacred text.
_________________________________________________________________
Galatians 4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar— 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children— 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.0 -
-
Yes, God literally addressed the snake. The devil certainly understood all that was meant; not sure how much the snake knew. Not to say that the higher animals have no conception of being guilty - I've seen pet dogs who knew they were up to no-good! I'm speculating, but I take it that the snake had no moral awareness like we have, nor the ability to look far into the future. Its conception would likely have been that of disapproval only.This is what I want to focus on. Do you believe God was literally addressing the snake, and that the snake (i.e. not the devil) understood?
That's one reason I say the account is meant to be understood as concerning Satan, Christ and us. The other - bigger- reason is the meaning given to it by the rest of the Scripture.
_________________________________________________________________
Hebrews 11: By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
0 -
Yes, God literally addressed the snake. The devil certainly understood all that was meant; not sure how much the snake knew. Not to say that the higher animals have no conception of being guilty - I've seen pet dogs who knew they were up to no-good! I'm speculating, but I take it that the snake had no moral awareness like we have, nor the ability to look far into the future. Its conception would likely have been that of disapproval only.
That's one reason I say the account is meant to be understood as concerning Satan, Christ and us. The other - bigger- reason is the meaning given to it by the rest of the Scripture.
There are two things wrong with that.
1) Snakes do not have the capacity to temp people to sin against God. Because it could not have tempted Eve, it makes no sense to say God disapproved of the snake for tempting Eve. Yet if we interpret the passage literally, we must conclude that, regardless of how angry God was with the devil, God disapproved of the snake for tempting Eve. The only way it makes sense with the rest of the Bible is if the snake represents the devil in an allegory about man's fall from grace. For even if the snake was possessed, the devil would have been the one who tempted Eve.
2) Take a look at Revelation 12:9 again
"that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan"
This is clearly not alluding to possession. God is calling Satan "that serpent of old", a metaphorical snake in other words.
Here is a question. Is there a passage anywhere in the Bible that suggests the snake was posessed by the devil, as opposed to actually being the devil?0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight said:
Correct. I assume you too are capable of recognising big differences in probabilities.
I am if the probabilities are worked out for me. I can tell that something that has a 50/50 chance of happening is more likely than something that has a 1 in 1000 chance of happening.
But that isn't the issue. The issue if whether you can accurately work out the unlikelihood of these "astronomically unlikely" events. You can't. I can't.
Not only can you not but your brain has in built instincts that will screw the results a particular way, towards you viewing it as unlikely.No, only God and His prophets and apostles were infallible. But all of us can know some things with certainty.
Is that infallibility?No more highly than the average person. I do believe most of us know when we hit our thumbs with a hammer, or kiss our lover's lips. If you are confused about which is the nicest, you do need medical help.
Funny you use that analogy. Are you equating the likely explanation with the nicest explanation?
And I've already explain that you are not in a position that know that if you are relying solely on working out these coincidences using your personal assessment of them.I've already said it is not a matter of common or even unusual coincidences.That would be interesting indeed. Perhaps you can point me to the relevant passages?
This would be a good start
Debunked! by Georges Charpak
or this article in Scientific America that references that book and sums it up
http://ourdevelopingmind.com/Miracleonprobabilitystreet-by-MichaelShermer.pdf
As this paper says you should experience a one in a million event approx once a month.
This seems hugely significant to us because we filter out all the non one in a million events and only remember the one in a million event.
As Francis Bacon put is
The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.
When you tell me you support the existence of God with things you believe could not be coincident I simply say you don't understand the probability of the events around you that you experience.
Not without stepping out of personal assessment and using some other system, such as simple maths to work out what were the actual probabilities of what they experienced happening.So no one can accurately assess probability?
I imagine you haven't done this.So astounding coincidences don't happen if they cannot be externally measured?
Of course they happen. They happen regularly and are of little significance. The problem si when you start using them to justify religion, saying well that couldn't have just happened, it must prove God exists. You lack the ability to work out by simply thinking about it that it couldn't have just happened.The person who knows the circumstances in detail is unable to recognise a 50-50 chance from a Million-One?
No, the person who "knows the circumstances in detail" is unable to work out that a one in a million event will happen to him at regular intervals (once a month on average) and this doesn't mean anything, certainly not enough to justify the existence of deities.
I'm not suggesting that what ever event or events you experienced where not extra-ordinary. I saying that they were not so extra-ordinary they can be used to say they would not have happened without divine intervention.
This is the are of probability that people have very hard time understanding because of the way our brain filters the constant stream of information entering our brain.I can see confirmation bias a danger in low-level coincidence, but not in remarkable and repeated occurrences.
You lack the ability to accurately assess the remarkability of these occurrences. If you actually want to do that pull out a pen and paper and start doing the maths. But I would imagine you don't actually want to know the true probability that under pins your faith.To suggest otherwise is downright silly - or determinedly in denial.
It may be silly but it is also true, which is why these popular science books find such a market, because it appears to us almost as an optical illusion we are so used to the way we process probability when we find out how flawed it is we get a chuckle like learning how a magic trick works.0 -
What a waste of 1577 pages0
-
-
The ID proponents have mathematically proven that the chance hypothesis of the Materialists is wrong ... and only the appliance of intelligence can scientifically explain the origins and/or development of the CFSI in life.Soul Winner wrote: »Well yes. But if ID is false then I suppose that is the only way it could have happened. The question is which of the two competing theories have more going for them? I don't think ID proponents should be obliged to prove the Chance hypothesis wrong in order to show that ID is a valid theory. If they are obliged to that then the Chance proponents would have to prove that ID is wrong. Neither of the two camps can do this.
There are three reasons for this:-Soul Winner wrote: »So what needs to happened is to have both theories placed side by side and the proponents of each to give good arguments and possibly good evidence for their respective views. Why can't both theories have an equal level playing field in this regard?
1. The Materialists (and their `fellow travellers') are currently in control of the scientific establishment ... and they openly proclaim that they will not `allow a Divine foot inside their doors'.
2. The Materialists have no evidence or any plausible reason why materialistic processes could ever spontaneously produce life or develop the massive levels of CFSI in even the simplest cell, to say nothing about a Human Being ... while there is ample scientific evidence for an intelligent origin of life.
Faced with this reality, it would seem that the only viable strategy is to suppress the debate entirely ... using a self-serving materialistic definition of science to exclude the evaluation of an intelligent origin of life from science itself.
3. The Materialists are supported in this by many Christians who also seem to have bought into the idea that God either didn't create anything or left no evidence of His actions.
You seem to be assuming that logic has something to do with the Materialist position ... when it is abundantly clear that their position is founded on the emotional and illogical denial of the existence of God ... in contravention of maths, logic and the physical evidence for His intelligent actions!!!;):)Soul Winner wrote: »ID proponents are not saying that life is too improbable to have formed therefore ID is correct. They also affirm that even the most basic life systems exhibit characteristics commensurate with systems that we know are the product of intelligent agents, except many orders of magnitude more advanced.
If you doubt this, just look at the emotional diatribes directed against ID and Creationism on this thread, while simultaneously not providing a screed of unambiguous physical evidence for the preposterous notion that muck somehow spontaneously produced mankind by a process of selected mistakes, over billions of (nonexistent) years !!!
The whole thing is an obvious (and specious) nonesense ... as John May says, it is the result of "the high priests of the highly improbable foisting the impossible on the impressionable.":eek:0 -
The ID proponents have mathematically proven that the chance hypothesis of the Materialists is wrong ... and only the appliance of intelligence can scientifically explain the origins and/or development of the CFSI in life.
ID "proponents" (ie Creationists) have shown that a protein forming by random chance is very unlikely.
Given that evolution never stated that proteins form randomly (hence the evolution bit of evolution :rolleyes:) and given you have been informed of this many many many time your statement above is deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.
You know you have won when the other side has to lie to support their position. You have to lie. Ergo we have won.0 -
... more unfounded adhominem stuff ... and not one iota of evidence (and indeed the admission that) Evolution coudn't produce even one simple functional protein in a billion trillion years!!!!ID "proponents" (ie Creationists) have shown that a protein forming by random chance is very unlikely.
Given that evolution never stated that proteins form randomly (hence the evolution bit of evolution :rolleyes:) and given you have been informed of this many many many time your statement above is deliberate attempt at misrepresentation.
You know you have won when the other side has to lie to support their position. You have to lie. Ergo we have won.
... and somehow you then expect people to believe that 'blind' materialistic processs could still produce a Human Being, despite not being able to produce a simple specific functional biomolecule.
Your posts sound like you are a high priest of the highly improbable trying to foist the impossible on the impressionable!!!:D:eek:0 -
Morbert said:
OK, let's ask how your idea works elsewhere:Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, God literally addressed the snake. The devil certainly understood all that was meant; not sure how much the snake knew. Not to say that the higher animals have no conception of being guilty - I've seen pet dogs who knew they were up to no-good! I'm speculating, but I take it that the snake had no moral awareness like we have, nor the ability to look far into the future. Its conception would likely have been that of disapproval only.
That's one reason I say the account is meant to be understood as concerning Satan, Christ and us. The other - bigger- reason is the meaning given to it by the rest of the Scripture.
There are two things wrong with that.
1) Snakes do not have the capacity to temp people to sin against God. Because it could not have tempted Eve, it makes no sense to say God disapproved of the snake for tempting Eve. Yet if we interpret the passage literally, we must conclude that, regardless of how angry God was with the devil, God disapproved of the snake for tempting Eve. The only way it makes sense with the rest of the Bible is if the snake represents the devil in an allegory about man's fall from grace. For even if the snake was possessed, the devil would have been the one who tempted Eve.
Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Was Christ speaking to Peter? Was it Peter who was mouthing the temptation of Satan? Was Peter guilty for doing this? Yes, on all counts. Was Satan the instigator, the prompter to evil? Yes.
Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.
3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude.
Who was the sinner ? Judas? Yes. Who was the instigator, the real power behind the evil? Satan.
So too with Eve and the snake. Satan used it to tempt Eve. Not being a moral creature, its judgement was temporal in nature. Satan's doom is spiritual.
It is using term 'serpent' as a metaphor for Satan - but that does not mean the original occasion of the metaphor was itself a metaphor. Today's trojan horse need not be a wooden horse, but the original certainly was. It was not a metaphor for some crafty plan that did not involve a wooden horse ( at least if we take the history at face value).2) Take a look at Revelation 12:9 again
"that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan"
This is clearly not alluding to possession. God is calling Satan "that serpent of old", a metaphorical snake in other words.
I can think only of the Genesis passage itself as confirming it was a physical snake in view. The other passages reveal the one behind it.Here is a question. Is there a passage anywhere in the Bible that suggests the snake was posessed by the devil, as opposed to actually being the devil?
_________________________________________________________________
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.0 -
Morbert said:
OK, let's ask how your idea works elsewhere:
Matthew 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”
Was Christ speaking to Peter? Was it Peter who was mouthing the temptation of Satan? Was Peter guilty for doing this? Yes, on all counts. Was Satan the instigator, the prompter to evil? Yes.
Luke 22:1 Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called Passover. 2 And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might kill Him, for they feared the people.
3 Then Satan entered Judas, surnamed Iscariot, who was numbered among the twelve. 4 So he went his way and conferred with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray Him to them. 5 And they were glad, and agreed to give him money. 6 So he promised and sought opportunity to betray Him to them in the absence of the multitude.
Who was the sinner ? Judas? Yes. Who was the instigator, the real power behind the evil? Satan.
So too with Eve and the snake. Satan used it to tempt Eve. Not being a moral creature, its judgement was temporal in nature. Satan's doom is spiritual.
If it is not a moral creature, then it cannot be judged, temporally or otherwise. It would be like judging a knife in a murder trial. With Judas and Peter, the case is different, as they could have been tempted by Satan to choose to do wrong, rather than be explicitly possessed and wielded like puppets.It is using term 'serpent' as a metaphor for Satan - but that does not mean the original occasion of the metaphor was itself a metaphor. Today's trojan horse need not be a wooden horse, but the original certainly was. It was not a metaphor for some crafty plan that did not involve a wooden horse ( at least if we take the history at face value).
"That serpent of old", specifically refers to the entity in genesis. Similar to "That Trojan horse of old" specifically referring to the original Horse. Unless genesis is an allegory, it makes no sense.I can think only of the Genesis passage itself as confirming it was a physical snake in view. The other passages reveal the one behind it.
But is there evidence that Genesis refers to a possessed snake, as opposed to, say, being an allegory/metaphor for the devil.0 -
if I were to hazzard a guess I would be inclined to say that in this instance the devil took the form of a snake.
ie, it really was satan.0 -
georgieporgy wrote: »if I were to hazzard a guess I would be inclined to say that in this instance the devil took the form of a snake.
ie, it really was satan.
But God explicitly punishes all snakes in the story, forcing them to crawl on their bellies.0 -
Advertisement
-
Not great punishment considering how well snakes are doing.
Question: Would the Biblical snake of Eden have had legs?0 -
-
-
Blimey..what a thread..
In the United States a survey conducted by Newsweek magazine in 2005 found that 80 percent of people “believe that God created the universe.”
Is this belief due to a lack of education- do any scientists believe in God?
The science journal Nature reported in 1997 that almost 40 percent of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians surveyed believe in a God who not only exists but also listens to and answers prayers.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/200609/article_02.htm0 -
-
The Mad Hatter wrote: »In R. Crumb's graphical adaptation of Genesis, yes.
Had a lgoogle, creepy looking fellow that Garden of Eden snake.0 -
ID proponents are not Creationists
Well yes, that was sort of my point and why I quoted the proponents bit, like you might talk of "Christians" who blow up abortion centers.
I was responding to JC's use of the terminology:
JC - The ID proponents have mathematically proven that the chance hypothesis of the Materialists is wrong
That is a Creationist claim, and it is based on a lie about what the theory of evolution says. While I disagree with the wider ID claims I wouldn't directly say they are lying. Creationists like JC on the other hand...0 -
Since ID proponents are not Creationists
The ID movement itself is a creationist movement. The book which started the movement is literally a creationist book with a few word swaps. And the wedge document produced by the Intelligent Design think-tank "Discovery institute" reveals the true nature of intelligent design: a political strategy.0 -
The ID movement itself is a creationist movement. The book which started the movement is literally a creationist book with a few word swaps. And the wedge document produced by the Intelligent Design think-tank "Discovery institute" reveals the true nature of intelligent design: a political strategy.
But not all ID proponents belong to this 'ID movement' of which you speak. You are doing the exact same thing as people who would lump all atheists in with 'the atheist movement' in America which, under Madeline Murray O'Haire, was profoundly homophobic. Therefore, by the same logic, atheists are homophobes.
The idea of ID makes sense to a lot of people who are not Creationists, and prominent ID proponents believe and state that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor.0 -
Advertisement
-
But not all ID proponents belong to this 'ID movement' of which you speak. You are doing the exact same thing as people who would lump all atheists in with 'the atheist movement' in America which, under Madeline Murray O'Haire, was profoundly homophobic. Therefore, by the same logic, atheists are homophobes.
The idea of ID makes sense to a lot of people who are not Creationists, and prominent ID proponents believe and state that all life forms have evolved from a common ancestor.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, but equally there is an actual ID movement, centered around a specific defined idea of Intelligent Design, coming from groups like the Discovery Institute who popularized the term "Intelligent Design" (notice the capitals) in modern times (specifically Charles Thaxton) and use it regularly to refer to their specific idea, an idea that does not state that all life have evolved from a common ancestor.
I think it is safe to assume when people on this thread discuss ID they are probably referencing this group or movement, just like it is safe to assume when people say "evolution" they mean the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution, as opposed to say Lamarckism evolution, or theories of economic evolution.
While you may be someone who holds to both intelligence and design in the natural world that doesn't mean you hold to the ideas of the Discovery Institute, so when people talk about ID as a specific thing, rather than the general non-specific notions of intelligence and design, it is safe to assume they aren't talking about you.
I think it is going to get unnecessarily pedantic if you require this to be clarified every time someone says ID.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement