The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

captain 26 · 14-02-2011 12:25am

Sounds almost plausible, but taking all the good things about religion and not the salvation that comes from a belief in Jesus Christ just leaves the people satisfied with their life here and sending them all to hell. I pray that he sees the error of his way before it’s too late.

Morbert · 17-02-2011 2:23pm

captain 26 wrote: »

Sounds almost plausible, but taking all the good things about religion and not the salvation that comes from a belief in Jesus Christ just leaves the people satisfied with their life here and sending them all to hell. I pray that he sees the error of his way before it’s too late.

I don't think God would be silly enough to send us atheists to hell when He has representatives like JC. More than likely, He'd congratulate us for not believing the crap JC comes up with.

wolfsbane · 17-02-2011 2:52pm

Apologies to Wicknight for not yet replying to his post23954, p. 1597. I've been - and am - engaged in a rather heated discussion on the AV/KJV debate. It was generated by a brother in my local church and involved other local contacts, so I felt obliged to give it my best attention.

Hope to be with you soon.

J C · 17-02-2011 11:00pm

Morbert wrote: »

I don't think God would be silly enough to send us atheists to hell when He has representatives like JC. More than likely, He'd congratulate us for not believing the crap JC comes up with.

Not me ... but God, says that you must believe on Jesus Christ to be Saved
Jn 3:16-21
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

J C · 17-02-2011 11:06pm

captain 26 wrote: »

Sounds almost plausible, but taking all the good things about religion and not the salvation that comes from a belief in Jesus Christ just leaves the people satisfied with their life here and sending them all to hell. I pray that he sees the error of his way before it’s too late.

The 'good things' about Christianity are a direct result of the fruits of the Holy Spirit acting within its people.
You can't get the same fruits from an Atheist 'Church' ... or indeed an apostate 'Church' ... because they are not blessed by the Spirit of God acting within them.

Lantus · 18-02-2011 12:23am

J C wrote: »

Your 'theory' is yet another variation on the unfounded Materialistic Evolutionist idea ... with some 'bells and whistles' added onto it for the religiously minded!!!:eek:

I came across this recently ... and I thought of you!!!

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” Genesis 1:1
The majority today pour scorn on the idea that God created the universe in 6 x 24 hour days. Their problem lies in the fact that they drag God down to their human level, and they fail to grasp the fact that the greatness of God transcends even their loftiest thoughts.
One Christian from a previous generation had a good understanding of God’s awesome majesty, and when considering the six days of creation, he asked, “I wonder why He took so long?”
God is greater that you could EVER, EVER imagine!

With love ... and compassion.:)

Well I agree in part with what your saying. The trouble with religion and christianity is no exception is that texts like the bible are both it's greatest strength and weakness. I allows it's devotees to understand the basic principles of what it's about but it also shackles them to the past and sets them in concrete which is largely unhelpful. When Any book or TV program which is obsessed over the fans find all sorts of hidden messages and meanings within the text and subtext. They start to interpret things literally and dont apply any context. Worst of all they disengage the creative and critical thought processes they were born with and simply accept everything without any thought.

I have always thought that the bible should be a springboard and reference guide but never a final destination. Life and learning is an ongoing process.

The 'why did he take so long' is the clever flanders comment that christians would laugh loudly at but most other people just cringe at.

J C · 18-02-2011 10:02pm

Lantus wrote: »

Well I agree in part with what your saying. The trouble with religion and christianity is no exception is that texts like the bible are both it's greatest strength and weakness. I allows it's devotees to understand the basic principles of what it's about but it also shackles them to the past and sets them in concrete which is largely unhelpful. When Any book or TV program which is obsessed over the fans find all sorts of hidden messages and meanings within the text and subtext. They start to interpret things literally and dont apply any context. Worst of all they disengage the creative and critical thought processes they were born with and simply accept everything without any thought.

I have always thought that the bible should be a springboard and reference guide but never a final destination. Life and learning is an ongoing process.

... you are correct that the Word of God is a starting point ... with the ultimate destination eternal Salvation.

In between we can all have a wonderful life to love and live for ourselves in the company of our fellow man and Jesus Christ

Lantus wrote: »

The 'why did he take so long' is the clever flanders comment that christians would laugh loudly at but most other people just cringe at.

Why do you cringe at the truth???
Creation week provides a dramatic counterpoint to the Materialists 'billions of years' within which they believe everything that they can imagine is possible ... when in reality nothing is possible without an ultimate input from an infinitely intelligent God!!!:)

himnextdoor · 23-02-2011 2:36am

Even before existence came into being there was there was the likelihood of its creation and so therefore the force of creation must be without beginning and without end. Even if there should come a time when all of existence ceases to be then the possibility of creation would be all that would remain. I'm happy to assume that there is a fundamental force that makes existence inevitable and I am happy to call that force God, creator of all.

I think that the differences betweens Creationists and scientists are a matter of scale and detail. Their narratives are quite similar; first there was nothing, then there was something, eventually there was us. The opening chapters of the bible could be made entirely acceptable to science with the addition of a footnote along the lines of 'For more detailed information on Creation, you will have to wait for Newton, Einstein and quantum mechanics'. Genesis simply documents early attempts to consider unfathomable questions and modern science has simply filled in some of the blanks.

The thing is though, modern science also broadly supports the notion of the development of species through natural selection. It does seem that humans were able to develop because of the advantages offered by random environmental changes and random events. If God does have a plan, humans are no more a part of it than cockroaches or poison ivy are.

There is no reason to think that the nature of God is unknowable to man and in the end, even God may be subject to the laws of physics but that should not detract from His infinite power; does knowledge of the universe make it any less beautiful? On the contrary, the universe becomes more and more amazing as science progresses.

If God wants us to find Him then why does He hide and if God doesn't want us to find Him then why give mankind the word?

God, the force of creation? Maybe. God, planner of the fate of mankind? Nah!

Fanny Cradock · 23-02-2011 3:21am

himnextdoor wrote: »

If God wants us to find Him then why does He hide and if God doesn't want us to find Him then why give mankind the word?

God, the force of creation? Maybe. God, planner of the fate of mankind? Nah!

Try telling that to the bulk of humanity who would testify that they found sufficient reason to believe in the Divine. I think it's a tortured argument that acknowledges the possibility that there might just be a God, but then goes on to categorically deny that all the various attempts to find this God are in anyway successful.

In the Christian context, the belief is that if you seek you shall find. The implication is that this must be done in a genuine manner and with a humble heart. I'm reminded of this programme called The Monastery. (Actually, I can't find the original 2006 series on Youtube any more, nor the excellent recent spin-off called "The Big Silence". The link is to a "The Monastery Revisited" filmed 18-months after the original series.)

himnextdoor · 23-02-2011 4:14am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Try telling that to the bulk of humanity who would testify that they found sufficient reason to believe in the Divine. I think it's a tortured argument that acknowledges the possibility that there might just be a God, but then goes on to categorically deny that all the various attempts to find this God are in anyway successful.

The bulk of humanity is programmed from day one to accept magic and mysticism as part of their 'real' world. We have tooth-fairies, Santa Claus, ghosts and spirits, heaven and hell drilled into us and for most people this method of subjugating the human condition is completely successful.

Is the search for truth not a divine cause? Science is not the Devil's work. In fact, to abandon the search for truth is an abdication of responsibilty for the human-race. Nature produced mankind just the way it is; inquisitive, intelligent, manipulating, corrosive.

And what I'm actually saying categocally is that not only does God exist but that it is only a matter of time before physics works out the formula of Him.

I suppose the question is, is this something that should or should not be done?

J C · 23-02-2011 8:56pm

himnextdoor wrote: »

The bulk of humanity is programmed from day one to accept magic and mysticism as part of their 'real' world. We have tooth-fairies, Santa Claus, ghosts and spirits, heaven and hell drilled into us and for most people this method of subjugating the human condition is completely successful.

All of Humanity is programmed since Creation to accept the spiritual dimension to life.
Even very young children, indeed especially very young children, have a deep interest in spirituality ... and this is due to the fact that all Humans are a combination of immortal spirit and mortal body.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Is the search for truth not a divine cause? Science is not the Devil's work. In fact, to abandon the search for truth is an abdication of responsibilty for the human-race. Nature produced mankind just the way it is; inquisitive, intelligent, manipulating, corrosive.

God produced Mankind as intelligent inquisitive persons ... He gave us free will to be manipulative or corrosive ... or loving and considerate.
The search for truth is indeed a Divinely Ordained cause ... and Creation Science (and ethically acceptable conventional science) is also a Divinely Approved use of our free will and intelligence.

himnextdoor wrote: »

And what I'm actually saying categocally is that not only does God exist but that it is only a matter of time before physics works out the formula of Him.

Creation Science has already proven that (a) personal intelligent entity(ies) of Divine proportions Created life.

God is a personal God ... and not an impersonal force.

himnextdoor wrote: »

I suppose the question is, is this something that should or should not be done?

... it's already been done ... by Molecular Biology ... and Maths !!:)

Ghost Buster · 23-02-2011 9:11pm

J C wrote: »

All of Humanity is programmed since Creation to accept the spiritual dimension to life.
Even very young children, indeed especially very young children, have a deep interest in spirituality ... and this is due to the fact that all Humans are a combination of immortal spirit and mortal body.

God produced Mankind as intelligent inquisitive persons ... He gave us free will to be manipulative or corrosive ... or loving and considerate.
The search for truth is indeed a Divinely Ordained cause ... and Creation Science (and ethically acceptable conventional science) is also a Divinely Approved use of our free will and intelligence.

Creation Science has already proven that (a) personal intelligent entity(ies) of Divine proportions Created life.

God is a personal God ... and not an impersonal force.

... it's already been done ... by Molecular Biology ... and Maths !!:)

Or we are all evolved from man who worshipped fire, thunder, the sun, what ever was scary cos we didnt know any better

.......[we do now.

J C · 23-02-2011 9:20pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Or we are all evolved from man who worshipped fire, thunder, the sun, what ever was scary cos we didnt know any better.......we do now.

You are correct that Evolutionists are the philosophical descendents of the worshippers of the 'gods of forces' ... and you are also correct that we now know that fire, thunder and sun 'gods' ... as well as Materialistic Evolution doesn't exist!!!:D

himnextdoor · 23-02-2011 9:22pm

J C wrote: »

God produced Mankind as intelligent inquisitive persons ... He gave us free will to be manipulative or corrosive ... or loving and considerate.
The search for truth is indeed a Divinely Ordained cause ... and Creation Science (and ethically acceptable conventional science) is also a Divinely Approved use of our free will and intelligence.

Look at the world; the evidence is that the human spirit is evil. At least in successful (in an earthly context) humans. The world is run by murderers and thieves who are evil by nature. Did God program them?

What does God need mankind for? Is He lonely? If God is omnipresent and omnipotent then it stands to reason that the world is exactly as God wishes it to be. He made it this way; evil.

Ghost Buster · 23-02-2011 9:28pm

J C wrote: »

You are correct that Evolutionists are the philosophical descendents of the worshippers of the 'gods of forces' ... and you are also correct that we now know that fire, thunder and sun 'gods' ... as well as Materialistic Evolution doesn't exist!!!:D

No. That would be just you and cousin marrying Southern Staters:rolleyes:

J C · 23-02-2011 11:27pm

himnextdoor wrote: »

Look at the world; the evidence is that the human spirit is evil. At least in successful (in an earthly context) humans. The world is run by murderers and thieves who are evil by nature. Did God program them?

The reality of free will is that Humans may engage in great evil ... or enormous good.
Just like we have murderers and thieves ... we also have philantrophists and loving friends amongst us.

himnextdoor wrote: »

What does God need mankind for? Is He lonely? If God is omnipresent and omnipotent then it stands to reason that the world is exactly as God wishes it to be. He made it this way; evil.

The amazing thing is that God created Mankind in His own image ... and gave us free-will ... so that, although God is omnipotent and omniscient ... He works in partnership with Human Beings.
He will save anybody who asks ... but He will not force Salvation on anybody who rejects Him.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 12:39am

himnextdoor wrote: »

The bulk of humanity is programmed from day one to accept magic and mysticism as part of their 'real' world. We have tooth-fairies, Santa Claus, ghosts and spirits, heaven and hell drilled into us and for most people this method of subjugating the human condition is completely successful.

I actually think there is good evidence to suggest that we are all born with an innate sense of intentionality and purpose in the world around us. Check out this talk by Justin Barrett called Born Believers: The Naturalness of Childhood Theism.

While we both would condemn the worst excesses of religion, suggesting that religion is nothing more than a method of subjugating people is fascicle and unhistorical. I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by the "human condition".

himnextdoor wrote: »

Is the search for truth not a divine cause? Science is not the Devil's work. In fact, to abandon the search for truth is an abdication of responsibilty for the human-race. Nature produced mankind just the way it is; inquisitive, intelligent, manipulating, corrosive.

If you think that everything starts and stops with nature then there is no explicit responsibility to seek truth or anything else. That is just you concocting purpose in an otherwise purposeless and indifferent universe.

I have no idea why you are informing me that science is not the Devil's work. I'm sure that even the most hardcore creationist (of which I am not) will turn to science (what I happen to think of as a corruption of it) to make their case.

himnextdoor wrote: »

And what I'm actually saying categocally is that not only does God exist but that it is only a matter of time before physics works out the formula of Him.

I suppose the question is, is this something that should or should not be done?

Fair enough. But then not only are you not talking about the God of Christianity, I'm afraid I don't even know what you mean when you use the word "God".

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 11:32am

Justin Barrett is a funny one for atheists, as his work confirms what a lot of atheists think yet he continues to be a theist. His work has been unfairly dismissed by a lot of atheists because of this, despite the fact that his work basically says that religion and religious thoughts are the by product of the evolution of the human mind and the various methods the human mind work, such as theory of mind and agency detection.

He would be an example of what I would say is the unfortunate conclusion that for someone people nothing science can demonstrate or could ever demonstrate would ever convince them their religion is imaginary, as "God did it" is always a meta-conclusion you can attach to anything.

As his own work suggests some people just will be believers, no matter what, the mental biases in their heads are just too strong.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 12:50pm

Wicknight wrote: »

As his own work suggests some people just will be believers, no matter what, the mental biases in their heads are just too strong.

Says the objective and oh so humble atheist. It must be swell to be composed entirely of atoms and reason.

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 4:37pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Says the objective and oh so humble atheist. It must be swell to be composed entirely of atoms and reason.

Its great. Do you actually disagree with my comment? You think you could convince say, Fred Phelps, that he is in fact wrong using science and reason?

You shouldn't under estimate cognitive bias.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 4:47pm

Wicknight wrote: »

You shouldn't under estimate cognitive bias.

Neither should you.

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 4:58pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Neither should you.

I'm not, thats my point.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 5:01pm

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not, thats my point.

Well bowl me over! Neither am I.

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 5:34pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well bowl me over! Neither am I.

That is what I was asking you given your cryptic dismissive tone. If you are agreeing with me then great.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 6:04pm

You didn't ask anything in the post in question. What you did was appoint yourself to position of teacher and delivered a lessons to the remedial class of cretinous theists. There is an unappealing after-taste of smug superiority detectable in some of your posts.

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 6:28pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You didn't ask anything in the post in question.

Sure I did

Do you actually disagree with my comment?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What you did was appoint yourself to position of teacher and delivered a lessons to the remedial class of cretinous theists.

I never called you cretinous

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

There is an unappealing after-taste of smug superiority detectable in some of your posts.

It is always hard to stomach such accusations from people who believe that they and their fellow believers have some how figured out the true religion and are in possession of the wishes of the divine creator of the universe, so spare me the lecture on smug superiority. :rolleyes:

PDN · 24-02-2011 7:05pm

Wicknight wrote: »

It is always hard to stomach such accusations from people who believe that they and their fellow believers have some how figured out the true religion and are in possession of the wishes of the divine creator of the universe, so spare me the lecture on smug superiority. :rolleyes:

Now might be a good time to remind you that you are the one making the effort to post in the Christianity forum to try to set the rest of us straight. I don't see anyone here except you who is acting smug.

But, to paraphrase your own advice in another thread, if you find us hard to stomach then no-one is forcing you to post here or to read our posts.

Fanny Cradock · 24-02-2011 7:15pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Sure I did

You asked a question about Fred Phelps after appending your own biases onto the work of Justin Barrett. In the Fred Phelps post you felt it necessary to issue us with a warning about cognitive bias. The irony of this warning in relation to your Justin Barrett comments was the reason I replied to you.

Wicknight wrote: »

I never called you cretinous

No, but often you manage to sprinkle just enough patronising nuggets onto your posts that it is difficult not to reach such conclusions.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is always hard to stomach such accusations from people who believe that they and their fellow believers have some how figured out the true religion and are in possession of the wishes of the divine creator of the universe, so spare me the lecture on smug superiority. :rolleyes:

From the guy who believes that the vast majority of mankind past, present and future is not just wrong on the details about God, they are also wrong on the very nature and purpose of existence :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Let's not pretend that I'm criticising you because you believe something other than I do. I'm criticising you because I find that in arguing your belief you sometimes employ condescension as a tool. Whether you realise this or not is besides the point.

Also, if you think that I follow "religion" then you obviously haven't been paying attention over the last 5 years or so.

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 7:18pm

PDN wrote: »

Now might be a good time to remind you that you are the one making the effort to post in the Christianity forum to try to set the rest of us straight.

Correct. Generally when I post my opinion or view point in a discussion forum its, as you some what rudely put it, to "set the rest of you straight"

It would be nice if I could do that without the insults and snide remarks.

PDN wrote: »

But, to paraphrase your own advice in another thread, if you find us hard to stomach then no-one is forcing you to post here or to read our posts.

So if I'm posting in a thread I find interesting and wish to engage in but am being insulted and called smug but a fellow poster, nothing to do with the topic at hand, my course of action is to simply leave the thread?

Can I ask is that advice as PDN the boards user or PDN the moderator of the Christianity forum?

Zombrex · 24-02-2011 7:27pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You asked a question about Fred Phelps before appending your own biases onto the work of Justin Barrett. Later you went on to after you went on to issue us with a warning about cognitive bias.

If you say so. You stated that I didn't ask a question, and I clarified I did.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, but often you manage to sprinkle just enough patronisation into your posts that it is difficult not to reach such conclusions.

So I don't actually have to call you a cretin, you can just tell what I'm thinking. Fair enough. If its all the same with you though I'm just going to stick to what I actually say.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From the guy who believes that the vast majority of mankind past, present and future is not just wrong on the details about God, they are also wrong on the very nature and purpose of existence :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well yes considering their beliefs are mutually exclusive. Most of them have to be wrong, purely from a logical deduction even if one of them turns out to be correct.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Let's not pretend that I'm criticising you because you believe something other than I do.

You aren't criticising me Fanny you are insulting me. I imagine you are doing that because I annoy you but perhaps you could leave it out of the thread you are supposed to be moderating.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm criticising you because I find that in arguing your belief you sometimes employ condescension as a tool. Whether you realise this or not is besides the point.

Your allowed to find me smug Fanny. But again can you leave that out of the thread.

Would you like all the regular posters on A&A to spurt out everything they think about you in every thread they contributed on? I think the mods here and on A&A would quickly nip that in the bud.

Ever heard attack the post not the poster? That isn't because everyone is supposed to get along, it is because attacking the poster derails threads.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also, if you think that I follow "religion" then you obviously haven't been paying attention over the last 5 years or so.

I've paid attention to every time you claim you don't follow a religion, but if you follow the Bible you follow the writings of a small organized group of men who formed a specific set of doctrine and dogma. That is a religion. But it is also a topic for another thread.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments