It seems to me lot of ,people like to belive in evolution,with evolution they do not have to answer for any thing to any one,creation instead put the individual to answer to the creator, and for lot of people it must be of a great discomfort.
Evolution OR Creation?
by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult
-
-
AlanF
It seems to me lot of ,people like to belive in creation,with creation they have to answer for any thing to my God who will kill them if they don't listen,creation put the individual to answer to the creator, and for lot of people it must be of a great comfort. AlanF
-
AlanF
Jesus, Mattkoo, I seriously misjudged you. You are a friggin braindead YEC.
AlanF
-
Abaddon
frankie:
It really doesn't take a lot of intelligence, to understand, that different scriptures have different purposes, I think a child can understand that.
Arbitrarily insisting that they all should fit some preconceived ideas, ideas and might I add, formulated to discredit it, and manifestly bias. Can hardly be use as a sound guide on which to discredit something.
...
You may want people to be consistent according to your standard, but the fact being, your standard may, or could be faulty, based on your assumptions, that your worldview is the only correct one. Please don't take this the wrong way, could your thinking be just a little too black-and-white? You know what I mean, namely every piece got fit into your preconceived idea of what scriptures should be according to your preconceived ideas and if it doesn't then it cannot be God's word.
...
No I do not have a secret decoder ring, there's much about scripture I do not understand, it's to be expected that an ancient book, God inspired would not be the easiest thing in the world to understandin its entirety. I suppose that's why they have scholars that make it their life's study.
Oh, so the scholars have the secret decoder rings? Essentially, you are saying that people assume which portions of the Bible are literal and which portions are metaphorical based upon their own or other people's study as there is no way of knowing for sure. And this is what you call 'accurate knowledge'?!
You are essentially telling me that god will allow our fates to be determined by whoever has the most pursuasive argument, when there is no way of definitively resolving the argument.
I have to ask; have you studied Literature at all? DO you actually realise how many interpretations it is possible to get out of a book? And that the larger the book, the greater the number of interpretations? And that you can make these sound so convincing that anyone could be fooled by them? And THIS is how God communicates with mankind?
Oh, and by the way, if it were demonstarbly true, as per my argument, then it wouldn't be possible to 'discredit it', no matter how much 'manifestly bias' one had. That is part of my point.
You've reminded me of what Jesus said "Father I publically praise You, for you have hidden these thing from the wise and revealed them to babes" I think God in his "transcendent" wisdom knew what he was doing. I believe the word of God is alive, and a sharper than any double-edged sword. God does not make blunders, only what appear to be blunder, to our limited understanding.
This is the big excuse that religionists of all flavours have been using for ages; anything that doesn't makes sense is the fault of the person that doesn't understand it. Nowadays it is used by timeshare salespeople, financial advisers, politicians, religionists, cult founders, therapists, lawyers, scientists etc.. I would say that if it doesn't make sense, it's probably because (in the Bible's case) it is a belief structure cobbled together from various ways people have comprehended god over the past few thousand years, with the resultant contradictions being presented as 'ineffability' or somesuch. It is like a parent responding to a child's query 'why?' with 'because it is'.
If that's not good parenting, then it isn't good goding either.
It's psychological manipulation 1.01 as used by Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones and the Evil Bastard Moon et.al.; "oh, we know the truth, and those who think they are wise and that we are wrong will realise the error of their ways".
There is a difference between "prove" and "know". If you understand the difference between "prove" and "know", you'll be able to see that there's no contradiction, if you cannot understand the difference between "prove" and "know", you will see contradiction.
...
Yes I do agree with your on this point. If Genesis was written to "prove" God is the creator, then it did fail miserably, but as I said above there is a difference between "prove" and "know".
Whoops a daisy... those pin heads get awfully slippy, don't they? I don't 'know' things unless I have had them 'proved' to me. I might 'think' something or 'be of the opinion' about something I don't have 'proof' of, but 'know'ledge implies certainty and certainty requires PROOF. However, as you accept that Genesis is flawed in the respect of providing proof, I'm happy to move on to your next point;
I don't suppose there is anything that God could cause to be written to "prove" he is the creator. But there are things he could put in writing, that revealed things about himself, so that we can get to "know" Him and his greatness. Of course to understand what I'm saying it have to know the difference between "prove" and "know".
Okay, this is where you go back to the begining. I think a fairly strong case has been made for it being quite possible for god to prove via writen accounts that the Bible was inspired IF it was and IF there is a god. You haven't yet rebutted this. Yet you are now saying it wouldn't be possible to prove it in writing. It almost sounds as though you are preparing to lose this argument and choosing a position that will allow you to maintain your opinion.
I do have to ask, if it's not possible to prove god's existence and divinity via a written record, then how can people be expected to know the truth about god's divinity and existence? How can people be expected to determine which Holy Book is the right one? Obviously the Quran allows people to know of Allah, the Bible allows people to know of YHWH, the Bhagahva Vita allows people to know of Brahma and Vishnu, etc..
But if none of them prove anything, as you seem to be saying, then how is the enquirer after truth able to discern what is the truth?
I would like to make this small observatio, the Israelites probably knew nothing about a volcano. They weren't world travelers.They would not have the foggiest idea of what you are saying.
Nice try... Joel 2:30-31 shows the Isarelites knew what volcanos were...
Here's a map of the volcanos in the region... the black triangle are volcanos...
... and even if those weren't active in the Bronze Age, the Israelites would have felt this;
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/santorini.html
So, your first objection rebutted.
I think this would cause great confusion, for they had no accurate idea of what the cosmos was, remember,,they had no telescopes, or any idea of the laws of gravity, to them "up was up" and "down was down" to introduce the idea of falling inward, would cause great confusion in their minds, as it was completely foreign to them.
Debatable; apparently you are happy that people would have comprehended Ezikiel's vision of god's chariot, but that the word 'falling' would have confused them. Hmmm.... but in anycase, this is a first stab at it, I'm not god and I am not all powerful and wise, so substituting;
'drawn ever to their star but never reaching its glory, dancing a dance to god's song as we see in the skies to this day.'
... is an acceptable improvement. That's another objection rebutted
Your reference to the earth as being the third planet, would really throw them for a loop. Can't you seee why God would stick basically to their current worldview minus the diety aspect of it. By getting too scientific and too exact in explanation to these primative people, would not be of help them to enter into this contract with Him, but would only confuse things.
Hello; people of the time knew of the division between celestial objects that moved relative to the background of the sky (planets, moon, comets), and those forming part of the background of the sky (stars). To explain that their home was another of the first catagory of celestial objects mentioned above would cause no problems. If you object to 'third' then 'third greatest of those seen' would suffice, as I seem to recall that Earth is not only the thrid planet out, but the third largest of those visable to the naked eye.
Another objection rebutted.
By your trying to teach science to a primitive people, you are confusing the issues at hand, which was namely entering into a contract with the Creator of everything.
By this arguement you could say any attempt to recount prophecy through the Bible would 'confuse the issues at hand'. Each objection you've made I've countered.
Sorry frankie, the Bible could easily have a creation account that proved inspiration that would have been comprehensable to the readers; you've not made your case.
arancia:
It seems to me lot of ,people like to belive in evolution,with evolution they do not have to answer for any thing to any one,creation instead put the individual to answer to the creator, and for lot of people it must be of a great discomfort.
This is the old boring argument that people who don;t believe in god have no moral standards. I would ask you to prove this, by showing (for example) that prisons hold proportionately more atheists than theists. But you can't, 'cause they don't. Please come back when you have a decent point.
AlanF:
I'm sure Mattkoo THINKS he has a good excuse for staging a hit and run, and despite the fact he was shown to be;
a/ wrong
b/ wrongand (wait for it)
c/ wrong
... he will manufacture some little conceit that allows him to hold onto his beliefs despite the fact the evidence he thought was so good for them was shown to be very bad science at the very least.
Isn't belief a wonderful thing?
-
frenchbabyface
AlanF & Abanddon THANKS !!! You are so PATIENT !!!
Abanddon : Okay, this is where you go back to the begining. I think a fairly strong case has been made for it being quite possible for god to prove via writen accounts that the Bible was inspired IF it was and IF there is a god. You haven't yet rebutted this. Yet you are now saying it wouldn't be possible to prove it in writing. It almost sounds as though you are preparing to lose this argument and choosing a position that will allow you to maintain your opinion.
YEP !!! Now how valuable is this book hum ??? ... not more than A SIMPLE BOOK MADE BY HUMANS BEINGS (it smells like anyway you try to believe cause it makes no sense)
By the way AlanF I love the "CARREY" PIC you've send on an other topic !!! -
LittleToe
Abaddon:
Isn't belief a wonderful thing?
Actually, it is.
For some people it's all that holds their little world together, so why deprive them of that?(btw, I'm looking for you to step back from the rhetoric, for a moment, and examine it morally)
-
Abaddon
Little Toe;
I object to false or misleading information being used to manipulate people. This is not a good use of belief, and I am sure you would agree.
I object to people using such false or misleading information to support a platform for the moral condemnation of others for actions which are only morally wrong when viewed from that platform. This is not a good use of belief, and I am sure you would agree.
If people are not using demonstrably false beliefs to manipulate or condemn people, they can believe what they like.
You have recognised that belief in god of some sort is quite compatable with acceptence of most modern science.
Whilst people do not accept this, the differences between religons will stay clearly defined and damaging, as rather than handing interpretation of the material world over to scinece and a set of rules that everyone has to use, each religion will use its own mythos to interpate the material world and shape its opinions.
If religions are seen by people as pathways to happiness, or maybe even god, and not as definitive discriptors of reality, then I have little objection to them.
Hell, I believe in the Glastonbury Fairy, and I have proof. Ever driven in a van with all your worldy possesions in it to start a life in a new country and had a rainbow apparently moving along with the vehicle for something like 50 miles? Does that make me manipulate people with this belief of condemn people because of this belief? Nope!
It's not belief I detest, but deciet and foolishness. We were foolish and deceieved for so long, do we really want any more?
As long as the above is I have no problem with people believing in YHWH, Allah, or any other postulated divine entity, provided they do not have a belief structure that is oppositional to reality or condemnatory of others.
-
frenchbabyface
Abbandon : I object to people using such false or misleading information to support a platform for the moral condemnation of others for actions which are only morally wrong when viewed from that platform. This is not a good use of belief, and I am sure you would agree. ... If people are not using demonstrably false beliefs to manipulate or condemn people, they can believe what they like.
Yeah !!! EXACTLY !!! ... DAMMIT !!!
Sorry I'm acting like a follower but geezzzzzzz I like it ...
-
frankiespeakin
Abbadon,
Nice try... Joel 2:30-31 shows the Isarelites knew what volcanos were...
I think your Bible exergesis is a tad worse than the Fundies. Joel 2: 30-31 "and I will give porents in the heavens and on the Earth blood and fire and columns of smoke the sun itself will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming up the great fear inspiriing day of Jehovah."
How does that show the Israelites knew what volcanoes were??? would you please explain?
Here's a map of the volcanos in the region... the black triangle are volcanos...
... and even if those weren't active in the Bronze Age, the Israelites would have felt this;
So, your first objection rebutted.
OK if you say so, (smile).
I think this would cause great confusion, for they had no accurate idea of what the cosmos was, remember,,they had no telescopes, or any idea of the laws of gravity, to them "up was up" and "down was down" to introduce the idea of falling inward, would cause great confusion in their minds, as it was completely foreign to them.
Debatable; apparently you are happy that people would have comprehended Ezikiel's vision of god's chariot, but that the word 'falling' would have confused them. Hmmm.... but in anycase, this is a first stab at it, I'm not god and I am not all powerful and wise, so substituting;
'drawn ever to their star but never reaching its glory, dancing a dance to god's song as we see in the skies to this day.'
... is an acceptable improvement. That's another objection rebutted
Actually to be honest I think it's a little worse, I think it would be even more confusing, than your first try. And it wouldn't be teaching accurate science either, as that seems to be your goal, (not God's goal) but your goal.
Your reference to the earth as being the third planet, would really throw them for a loop. Can't you seee why God would stick basically to their current worldview minus the diety aspect of it. By getting too scientific and too exact in explanation to these primative people, would not be of help them to enter into this contract with Him, but would only confuse things.
Hello; people of the time knew of the division between celestial objects that moved relative to the background of the sky (planets, moon, comets), and those forming part of the background of the sky (stars). To explain that their home was another of the first catagory of celestial objects mentioned above would cause no problems. If you object to 'third' then 'third greatest of those seen' would suffice, as I seem to recall that Earth is not only the thrid planet out, but the third largest of those visable to the naked eye. Another objection rebutted.
Yes they did know that stars had a certain motion in the sky, that the planets didn't follow, but they didn't know what the planets were.
What you are trying to do is turn the written contract of the law into some kind of science lesson, this is causing confusion. Can't you see why God would use something similar to the Babylonian worldview to it large extent in the Genesis account to avoid confusion. God is establishing in the minds of the Israelites, relationships, and status, not teaching science.
By your trying to teach science to a primitive people, you are confusing the issues at hand, which was namely entering into a contract with the Creator of everything.
By this arguement you could say any attempt to recount prophecy through the Bible would 'confuse the issues at hand'. Each objection you've made I've countered.
Each objection you may have countered to "your" satisfaction. I guess you like to pat yourself on the back, quite a bit.
Sorry frankie, the Bible could easily have a creation account that proved inspiration that would have been comprehensable to the readers; you've not made your case.
If the Bible were giving a creation account, so that many years later we could check it out to see if, the Bible was inspired or not I would agree with you. But the Genesis account is not for that purpose, it serves as a preamble for the a contractorial agreement with the Israelites and Yahweh, it was not meant to relate scientific knowledge about creation, it was meant to relay "status" information, "status" that God is the Creator and "status" that the everything else was creation.
-
Abaddon
Deary deary me...
I think your Bible exergesis is a tad worse than the Fundies. Joel 2: 30-31 "and I will give porents in the heavens and on the Earth blood and fire and columns of smoke the sun itself will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming up the great fear inspiriing day of Jehovah."
How does that show the Israelites knew what volcanoes were??? would you please explain?
I shouldn't have to explain as it's in the links I provided. Thanks for taking the time to read them, it really fills me with confidence about how seriously you are taking this discussion. Would you like I show you the same level of respect (i.e. none) when you cite evidence to support your arguments (which you ain't so far, not to me)?
But, as you need it feeding to you;
"The plinian column during the initial phase of the eruption was about 23 miles (36 km) high."
"Ash fell over a large area in the eastern Mediterranean and Turkey"
From the links in the above post.
It even says column... I suppose a pillar of smoke and a column of smoke are different things? Or that it's a coincidence the descrition of an eruption and that in Joel match so well? I know one thing for certain, if a theory of your relied upon asserting that Joel was talking about volcanic eruptions, you'd accept it on the nod frankie; tell me if you wouldn't and EXPLAIN why not.
Do you remember the Mount St. Helens eruption? That was small in comparison, yet that darkened the sky. The Krakatoa eruption of the 19th C was smaller than Santorini too, and that pushed so much dust into the atmosphere that sunsets were far more brilliantly colured for some time afterwards; the moon is similaly effected by atmospheric debris. An active volcano can also spew dust for ages before going boom. Oh, the boom of Krakatoa was heard 2500 miles away; people really HEARD Santorini go up.
Thus the descrition "columns of smoke the sun itself will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood" perfectly describes the visual effects of a volcanic eruption.
Of course, you can persist in your claim that israelites didn't know what volcanos were, but the plain fact the evidence supports is they did. Snide comments do not make your case. Rebutt my argument with evidence. Or don't you have any?
Can you see a pattern here? You assert something, I show the evidence shows that what you have asserted is unlikely, and you, despite the reasons for believing something have been shown to be false, carry on believing it.
Likewise I find you response to the next bit perplexing;
Actually to be honest I think it's a little worse, I think it would be even more confusing, than your first try. And it wouldn't be teaching accurate science either, as that seems to be your goal, (not God's goal) but your goal.
.... bodies in orbit round the sun FALL towards the sun under the influence of gravity, but are moving fast enough to never hit what they are falling towards; that's good old Newtonian physics. My phrasing carries coded the scientific law of gravity, to an ancient culture it would be an expression of the attractive glory of the sun, and of the different nature of the planets who were drawn to it but never capable of reaching it. Bit like the idea that you can't look on god and live, which apparently you think makes sense.
Yes they did know that stars had a certain motion in the sky, that the planets didn't follow, but they didn't know what the planets were.
They needn't know what planets are; establishing the Earth was like the 'moving stars' and that the sun was like the unmoving stars would be comprehensible and carry coded indication of inspiration.
What you are trying to do is turn the written contract of the law into some kind of science lesson, this is causing confusion. Can't you see why God would use something similar to the Babylonian worldview to it large extent in the Genesis account to avoid confusion. God is establishing in the minds of the Israelites, relationships, and status, not teaching science.
So, God used the worldview of a bunch of pagans rather than telling his people the truth? And I don't recall Tiamat being cut in two in the Genesis creation account... but I digress, that's an absurd idea. For a start, my Creation account IS comprehensible to someone from the Bronze Age, no more or less than the Genesis account at any rate. To suppose otherwise is to suppose that some Amerind mythic traditions were incomprehensible to them. Your objections are dealt with as you raise them. You object via opinion rather than evidence.
To advance the notion, as you implicitly do, that God is incapable of inspiring a creation account that would be comprehensible to the people of the time and yet carry coded indication of inspiration, when in the space of a few posts I've shown it IS possible, is falling victim to the childish anthromorphisation that most human concepts of god fall victim to.
You similtaneously subscribe divine abilities and human incompetence to the creator of the Universe. You describe his abilities at limitless, yet you allow the lack of certainty over the existence of god and/or which is the true path to be the fault of humans!
All of these are illogical attitudes based upon presuppositionalist thinking. You admit yourself that the Genesis account does not prove divine authorship, and by doing so it serves only to place the Bible in the stack with all the other Holy Books; and I assure you, if you try to find another part of the Bible that does allow one to seperate it from other Holy Books as a sign of certain inspiration, you're in for a hard job.
Each objection you may have countered to "your" satisfaction. I guess you like to pat yourself on the back, quite a bit.
You asserted that Israelites didn't know of volcanos. I've shown this to be false to a very high level of certainty, higher than, for example, the certainty that 40 years in the Wilderness can be described as a factual event. I've dealt with your other objections in a similar fashion.
However, you maintain the same argument, even though the backing for that argument has been removed. If you are unaware of the cognitive dissonance this displays, I can assure you I'm not, nor are other people reading this. I'm pointing out that your objections have been countered as you refuse to accept it, but are JUST refusing to accept it.
You are saying 'if you say so', instead of 'the evidence that Israelites knew what volcanos were is not good enough because of x y z'.
Engage in the discussion frankie, don't palm me off with avoidance and superciliousness.
You, for example admit that Genesis doesn't prove God inspired it, and assert that it wasn't meant for that, but that it was meant to establish a law covenant. You do not deal with the illogicity of god putting something in his Holy Book that would turn people away from the Bible. You also need to answer the question of if Genesis doesn't prove inspiration in the Bible, as you admit, what does?
Of course, if you want to say that you believe the Bible is just one way god reached mankind and that god used naturalistic processes in creation, I have no argument with you. But I don't think you want to say that, I think you are looking to claim a special purpose in the Bible. I am looking for you to back that up with some facts.