Alan:Profuse apologies. I misunderstood.
Evolution OR Creation?
by Brummie 183 Replies latest members adult
-
-
frankiespeakin
Abbadon,
If you go back to the original post where I critqued your use of the word volcanoes, I said the Israelites probably did not know what volcanoes were. I don't consider it a crucial point in our discussion, I still feel most likely they didn't know what volcanoes where. As to its importance in our discussion, I considered a very minor subpoint, that if I or you were correct in this matter would make very little difference to the subject at hand. You could be right, I could be wrong, but it's such a minor point it would hardly matter.
I think the point still stands, that it is not necessary to teach accurate science in the preamble of a law contract with the nation of Israel. , the understanding of the Israelites, would have to be taken into consideration, in drawing up this contract in order to avoid confusion, "status and relationship" of the contractor and contractee must be established in a way to avoid any unnecessary confusion.
We in the 20th century with our advanced understanding, will view the Genesis account of creation as not very scientific, but if we put our thinking caps on, we could see this as quite normal and even benifical.
Even throughout the entire Bible there seems to be no consideration for relating scientific information, the book is very metaphorical written in many different genres, and primary interest is theological and not scientific.
-
Abaddon
frankie:
You could be right, I could be wrong, but it's such a minor point it would hardly matter.
*sigh* Despite the evidence I have presented (versus the opinions you have presented), it's obviously not minor enough to you to conceed you were wrong. I don't think that's reasonable. You say x can't be so, I show it can be with evidence, you then refuse to conceed you were wrong; what's the point in me talking to you if you won't accept reasonable evidence?
I think the point still stands, that it is not necessary to teach accurate science in the preamble of a law contract with the nation of Israel. , the understanding of the Israelites, would have to be taken into consideration, in drawing up this contract in order to avoid confusion, "status and relationship" of the contractor and contractee must be established in a way to avoid any unnecessary confusion.
We in the 20th century with our advanced understanding, will view the Genesis account of creation as not very scientific, but if we put our thinking caps on, we could see this as quite normal and even benifical.
Even throughout the entire Bible there seems to be no consideration for relating scientific information, the book is very metaphorical written in many different genres, and primary interest is theological and not scientific.
You are ignoring the entire point.
God could have given evidence for his/her/its existence through the methods I have described.
He/she/it did not. T
his demonstrably makes people NOT believe in BibleGod.
God would have known this would happen.
His/her/its failure to provide such evidence means that;
- either the characteristics of BibleGod as described by its followers are false, and it is not a caring, loving entity that desires all be saved,
- or that there is no BibleGod.
You also ignore that the story of Babel (let alone the rest of it) destroys your idea of a contract, as god is in clear breach of any standard of reasonable behaviour.
Perfect humans with infinate lifespans act in defiance of god's law and attempt to decide things for themselves. God says 'Go on then, see if you can do it on your own, see if I lied", BUT immediately loads the dice against humans by removing their perfection and making them mortal.
This alone is cheating.
Humans without fear of disease or aging could obvuiously make a better job of things, increasing in wisdom and knowledge over their years, and would be very keenly interested in stability and sustainability of their civilisation, as they would be around to reap the concequences if the society was unstable or unsustainable.
Even WITH god cheating, man got organised enough for god to be afraid that these pathetic mortal creatures would be able to do anything they put their mind to; in other words, prove god wrong. So he cheats again by confusing their languages.
As you have NO RESPONSE OR DEFENCE FOR THIS, you simply ignore it. If all of this is a metaphor, the metaphor shows us that god is a bastard. If all of this is real history, it tells us that god is a bastard. If it is just a mythic structure for a people, then it does mean anything about god at all. YOU CHOOSE.
Why not just have the FAITH to say you believe because you believe? Your attempts to make your faith something objectively determinable as correct and reasonable fail, and actually devalue your faith (in my eyes) as you doubt it so much you seek to justify it, and in doing so fail to see that you are making god in your own inage (the anthropomorphic flawed petty and violent creature of the Bible), rather than looking for god as it might be, if you didn't shackle your mind to a Bronze-Age goatherd's idea of reality.
-
AlanF
No problemo, LittleToe.
As for frankiespeakin, note what I said:
The problem with this "contract" theory is that under reasonable contract law, if one party to a contract deliberately deceives the other, the contract is null and void. 'Tis a pity God doesn't understand this.
So, frankiespeakin, by your own "contract logic" and the simple requirement that parties to a contract shall not deceive one another, Genesis is null and void.
If you fail to respond to my pointing out this simple fact, then you'll have proved what sort of Christian you are.
AlanF
-
AlanF
As usual, Abaddon, you make excellent points. That business of God "loading the dice" was one of the major things that convinced me that either God is completely without normal moral sense, or there is no God. Either way, agnosticism or atheism is the result.
The Babel story simply reinforces that the Bible God is a gross cheater. It's not even something the most ardent Bible defender can argue about, since it's there in all its glory: As soon as mankind started doing 'great things', God made further sure that mankind would fail. He said something like, "See what they do! Nothing that they have in mind will fail. I can't tolerate that!" What a petty little diety! What a cheater!
AlanF
-
Brummie
Hey guys, I have stepped out of this due to a lack of knowledge and feeling weaponless to defend either side. I have read all the posts on both threads so please dont take it that I have ignored anyone. I'm off to get an unbiased education on both sides of the story. You have all made good reading....i'll be back (Arni style)
-
frankiespeakin
Abbadon,
frankie:
You could be right, I could be wrong, but it's such a minor point it would hardly matter. *sigh* Despite the evidence I have presented (versus the opinions you have presented), it's obviously not minor enough to you to conceed you were wrong. I don't think that's reasonable. You say x can't be so, I show it can be with evidence, you then refuse to conceed you were wrong; what's the point in me talking to you if you won't accept reasonable evidence?I think you play a little too fast and lose with the facts and evidence. And then pat yourself on the back for a job well done. I guess in your own world you are always the winner of every arguement. I will point out some your tactics.
First I never said "x can't be so", that word "can't" is so definative. Here's a cut and paste of what I actually said:
"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." Posted 9/26/03 10:38 Please go back and check it out.
You are trying to paint an unture picture, here, of what I said to further your character assassination. Then you make it appear that you have given is conclusive proof, that your "evidence" is a positive affirmation, which is is not. I 've notice BTW in doing a search of your profile, and postings, and that it seems to be a very real problem you have, namely misinterpreting people's words. Logansrun thread about a related subject, is just one such example.
I refuse to conceed that I'm wrong because your evidence is not conclusive. It is quite comical how you try to pawn yourself off as a man of reasonableness and unchallengeable intellect, and yet at the same time show how biased you are, and that on the smallest sheds of evidence, you proclaim yourself the winner in the debate,,, now really, such tactic are so unbecoming of a man with your great ability.
Let me quote you again for clearity "You say x can't be so, I show it can be with evidence, you then refuse to conceed you were wrong; what's the point in me talking to you if you won't accept reasonable evidence?"
The evidence you brought forth is not conclusive, so that I should now say you are right, to expect me to conceed, on such flimsy evidence simply because you say it is proof, is not reasonable. The best I can do for your brusied ego, is to say you "could be right", but to conceed that you have proven your side of the argument would be a lie.
I will comment further , on the rest of your post. Soon.
-
frenchbabyface
Frankies : ...They weren't world travelers ...
SORRY WRONG !!! There always have been world travelers (EXCHANGES) and more when things like that happen (IMMIGRATION they have to choose another place) And I saw a TV topic talking about how the sky turned grey on almost 1/6 of the planet.
Frankies, I understand you need to have a good point ... ok ... take your time ... and come back with something relevant.
-
frankiespeakin
Abbadon,
You also ignore that the story of Babel (let alone the rest of it) destroys your idea of a contract, as god is in clear breach of any standard of reasonable behaviour.
Perfect humans with infinate lifespans act in defiance of god's law and attempt to decide things for themselves. God says 'Go on then, see if you can do it on your own, see if I lied", BUT immediately loads the dice against humans by removing their perfection and making them mortal.
This alone is cheating.
I think your views of "standard reasonable behavior" may be little different than mine. You must remember that you may not have all the facts llegally straight in your own mind, your judgment could be faulty?
I know that it may be very hard for you to accept, but a little bit of reasonableness, might leave room for the possibility, that maybe, just maybe, you could be an error, and that you have not that carefully considered every angle in your judgment in this matter???
First since God is the Creator this automatically gives Him the right to do whatever he wants with his creation. If God, all of a sudden decided that he wanted to destroy all life in our universe, and all the other universes that He made what of it???
What claim could a person make if God choose to to do that? Could someone say God has no right to do that? On what authority could a person say that God had no right to do that? It's His universe, or universes, to do with what ever He pleases, He made them didn't He? If He alone is the Creator of everything, He damn well has the right to do whatever He wants with what He made, since there's no one higher than Him, He doesn't have to answer to nobody, or render an account to anyone as to how he is handling his Creatorship.
Revelation 4:11 tells us, we were all created for God's own pleasure.
Now if God chooses to give us free will, with the caveat, of responsibility to him, for how we use it, that is His prerogative as Creator. If he chooses to make a universe, that is filled with intelligent life that worships Him, that is His prerogative also. If he chooses to thwart men's efforts, that are in opposition to His purpose, so what?? The creation is His to do what is right in His eyes.
I think this "story" of the Tower of Babel has a lesson for us, namely that God's purpose is irresistible, and that as the Creator He can destroy life, as well as He can create life, He can do what ever he wants because He's the Creator.
-
frankiespeakin
AlanF,
The problem with this "contract" theory is that under reasonable contract law, if one party to a contract deliberately deceives the other, the contract is null and void.
'Tis a pity God doesn't understand this.So, frankiespeakin, by your own "contract logic" and the simple requirement that parties to a contract shall not deceive one another, Genesis is null and void.
If you fail to respond to my pointing out this simple fact, then you'll have proved what sort of Christian you are.
AlanF
While God did not use exact scientific language common of our 20th-century in the wording of the contract to the Israelites 3200 years ago, He spoke truth to them, He is the Creator they are the creation the contract was no deception, the contract was honest in the truly pertainent, and important things that need to be stated in order to enter into a, eyes opened contract, with God.
They were merely stated clearly in concepts they could understand or grasp.