hi, i'm a long time reader of Orson Scott card's books, and the Ender series is by far my most read series. I have loved every second of every book i have read. But i've never found myself to post on the forums.
My problem is more on a question of religion, and since in you're books you write an awful lot about religion i was hoping you could help me figure out a way for me to over come a problem i have.
To write science Fiction you obviously must have some foundation of scientific knowledge. Science has been close to my heart ever since i could read. I am a christian, and truly believe in god, jesus and all the saints and everything, But one area i have never believed is in humans decent. I went to a christian primary school, before having to leave england for singapore, due to my fathers job. In singapore i was introduced to a theory i had never heard of, Evolution. This theory just struck me as the only true way god could create a true and perfect universe.
Anyway whether you believe in Evolution or not is not important. I have a long time girlfriend we're planning marriage but we've hit a problem and it's all religious. She is a devout christian, and as such every word of the bible is god's own written language, thus for me to believe in evolution, to her, means i cannot believe in god or jesus.
i have explained to her my views on evolution, and why, to me, it makes the whole much more believable, But she's got it into my mind that i hate my god and i'm destined for a life in purgatory.
I have tried everywhere, but every priest, minister i find just says "Evolution is not real" i find the blinkered ness impossible to deal with, and would hate to lose a religion, because the religion would not accept me. But more importently i would hate to lose the love of my life.
Being a highly scientific mind, i have to have proof, of which i can test and obtain a common answer, before i can ever truly believe something. and no body can come up with any proof to say evolution is false.
I'm at my wits end and i'm hoping someone somewhere can give me a way to prove to my girlfriend that i do believe in our god and jesus and 99% of the bible, and that the 1% i don't believe is the 1% that most commonly causes conflict with science.
Am i lost? Am i going to have to say its science or religion, in which case i would have to choose science.
I know maybe this isn't the forum to bring this up on, and i will respect if it is removed due to being off topic. But reading your books you are a scientist and a religious man, and while you may not subscribe to the evolution theory perhas you can direct me in a way that can solve my canundrum (Sorry spelling was never my strong point in school)
I will be very grateful for replies from anyone on this.
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
I don't mean this to sound condescending and antireligious (though it will) but if you are of such a scientific disposition that you must have evidence for everything, how did you arrive at being a devout christian? What compelling evidence do you have that Jesus ever rose from the dead, or even he did, that he was the son of god?
Back the main point of you question though. How much does this disagreement really affect your life together? Do you get into fights on a daily (or even more often) basis over evolution? After one of these arguments are you quickly reconciled? Or is there lasting bitterness? If this is something that often causes hostility between you two, and prevents you two from devoting yourselves fully to each other, then she may not be The One.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
sorry, I did not claim i was a devout christian, And yes i admit sometimes, i NEED to believe when in my mind i acknowledge it cannot be possible (jesus rising from the dead to use your example). A total hypocrit. maybe. I fear to give in to my girlfriend would be to live a lie.
On the other note it doesn't affect us on the whole the problem arrises when we start to talk about children. I want the children to learn everything so he/she/they can grow up to from their own opinions. My girlfriend wants to limit all knowledge to that of the bible and anything outside of the bible which doen't contradict the bible in anyway. (eg. evolution)
we live together fine as is, but i watch alot of discovery channel and everytime evolution is mentioned i hear her scoffing and it starts the same fight about our future children
While i understand its probably very early to be thinking about children. Its had me up all night since i just re read 'Seventh Son' and since it was that book that got me back to thinking about it, i thought here would be as good a place as any.
To be honest i'm not sure what i want from the boards, i was hoping Mr Card might be able to direct me to some sort of biblical page that could help me.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I honestly do not see how evolution and the Bible cannot exist together. Reading Genesis I see a description that sounds a heck of alot like the big bang and evolution. Genesis describes there first being creatures of the sea and air, followed by creatures of the land, and finally god creating man to rule over these creatures.
Can someone explain to me how exactly evolution is not compatible with the Bible? Maybe evolution is true, maybe it isnt, but how does evolution cancel out creationism? The Bible never says exactly how God created creatures, I see no reason why he couldnt have created through evolution.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
Adam and eve would suggest that humans were created separate of other primates.
So evolution can be true except for humans, which, ofcourse, we're unique by being created in the image of god. At least in the eyes of my Girlfriend and all the priests i can find.
Posted by AC (Member # 7909) on :
--EVO-- I got the devout from the "i truly believe in Jesus . . . etc"
--Pro-- Most of the fundamentalist religious opponents to evolution say it must be false because the bible does not specifically say "Life evolved from bacteria into fungus and then plants etc", it says god created, meaning he willed it, and these creatures suddenly came into existence fully formed and exactly the way they are now.
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
God created all that is in seven days.
Of course, this was before the sun and the earth for the most part. I imagine what's a day to God is probably quite a long time to us. Relativity and all that.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Of course God, not being confined to time, could take as long as he wanted to "create" Adam and Eve. And still the method through which God created Adam out of the "dust of the Earth" or Eve from Adam's rib are not explained.
Also, one must consider that the first books of Genesis were not written by Adam or Eve or directly by God. It is likely they were written some thousands of years later. The writer's social, political and historical setting is also not known.
To add to the argument against fundamentalism, one must consider that there are references in the Bible to books and pasages that we do not have. For example, Matthew's reference to a prophesy that says that the Messiah would be a Nazerene. This passage was apparently widely known at the time, as opponents of Jesus used it to denounce him because he was born in Bethlehem, but it cannot be found in today's bible.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
ah sorry i do truly believe, i would just never call myself a devout. My mistake, maybe they're one and the same, but to me they are different. To be devout one must, in my eyes, believe the bible word for word, and give their lives to the pursuit of god and the 'correct' life, for want of a better word, and to try and convert people to their religion and their beliefs.
I personally just Beleieve and try and follow to the best of my ability. I would never attempt to convert anyone who did not specifically seek it.
i don't know, i'm pretty sleepy right now it being 641 am, and not having slept properly for a few days. maybe i'm just going crazy from sleep deprivation, and my posts are incoherent blubber. in which case i appologise profusely.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
why is that so hard to believe? If God can create the whole universe and every single animal on the planet why cant he create man? Humans have found no fossile record or skeleton showing the missing link. I find myself arguing in support of Christianity a whole lot, but I myself am not Christian, although I imagine I will be in the near future. One time I listened to a sermon by Lon Solomon, which can be found online for free at This Website
It is about the validity of the Bible. There is a specific sermon called, "Darwin Vs. The Bible" although I found part three to be particularly informative about the historical legitimacy of the Bible. If you are going to listen to this click on the one that has the guys face next to the title, that way you can pause the sermon if you need to. Hope that helped in some way.
Just to add, this guy is a pretty famous Pastor in the DC area. I think he speaks very well.
Edit: I wanted to say that I do not really understand how important this can be in the relationship? I realize it is important to her, but in reality isnt the focus of Christianity a belief in Christ dying for your sins and you accepting and acknowledging that? This evolution thing seems fairly trivial when it comes to Salvation. Your girlfriend mentions purgatory, but is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? I dont remember reading about it. But I admit, I am no Bible scholar or anything like that, so I am not challenging you and saying she is wrong. I am truly interested in reading about it.
[ May 01, 2005, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Promethius ]
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
Epicteus,
I follow the way of thinking you have written there.
i have explained that way to priests and still get the whole evolution is not true speach.
I think my main problem isn't with my girflfriend maybe its with my church. I listen to my preists and try to understand everything they say to me, yet when i bring up a subject like evolution all i get is "its not true"
i may need to rethink this whole business. again maybe it isn't a problem with me and my girlfriend. maybe it has deeper roots...
then again i'm going to have to sleep now.
thank you all for you're posts.
i hope i can find the topic tomorrow.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
No promethius, there is no "missing link" fossils. you're right, but how does the bible account for the staggering changes in fossil records from period to period? from simple 1 cell organisms in the first recordable period, to the current period, each period produced newer bigger organisms, before some suddenly spurted legs and decided to walk.
Are we to assume this is gods trial and error? surely not that would make our god fallible. so what?
my only answer is that of evolution.
Got created the simpleist life, and in that life he breathed the laws of evolution, maybe there was some other law we have yet to discover, but those laws god created, knowing, in his infinite wisdom, one day a creature would arise in his image to rule over every other crature on earth.
and the first of our kind to evolve was what we have come to call adam and eve.
That is how i have come to associate the two. but i cannot get any guidance on this. from anyone.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I've been having problems with my religion/people in my religion too so I understand how you feel. I hope things work out for you.
Posted by Lady Future (Member # 7942) on :
What confuses me most about this situation you have is why your girlfriend has so much of a problem with giving her future children a choice of religion. I should hope she's able to keep in mind that they will be people of their own and have their own personalities to develop and explore. Thinking from the point of view I suspect she has, it makes sense that she'd be concerned that the religion they would choose might conflict with hers. However, I think it would be better in the long run if she didn't keep them from something that builds a huge part of a person's self.
I've generally found that when it comes to disagreeing with a person about something concerning religion, it helps to ask them very calmly to, for just a second, look at things from your standpoint. It might take some convincing (I know that far too many deeply religious people don't take me seriously since I have a different faith than they do) but if you prove to your girlfriend that you understand where she's coming from, she might feel more comfortable, and thus have an easier time doing the same and looking at things from your beliefs. Plus, does it feel tense when you're discussing it with her? It's always easier to come to a decision when it feels more like a friendly debate and less like a heated argument.
I wish you luck with this, since otherwise it sounds like you've got a good, strong relationship with her.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
I really think you should listen to the three sermons I linked to, they provide some interesting insight about this sort of thing. I am not a pastor, and I feel like I know very little about the Bible in comparison to someone who has studied it. for their life.
Evo, I think you should speak with a pastor from a church that will attempt to answer and discuss your questions with you. I have been in contact with a pastor from my girlfriends church(and hopefully future fiance's church if things go how I think they will over the next 4-6 months) I think we are in a similar situation, my girlfriend will not marry me unless I am Christian. Anyway, I ask him questions like this all the time, and if he cant answer them he talks with the head pastor of the church and they discuss my questions and have always answered them in a way that makes sense to me.
I believe me and you think in very similar ways, because these are some of the exact questons I have been struggling with. Another source that you might find helpful is a book called, "The Case For Faith" and "The Case For Christ." Both of these books were written by someone who was once an atheist and it talks about his reasons for belief in Christianity. I found both of these books in my public library, they are written by a guy named Lee Strobel.
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
Prometheus: I personally find it all hard to believe in the basis that we've seen evolution in action (the Galapagos islands, where Darwin formed his theory, has such species diversity that you can see major genetic traits evolve in a matter of decades). The fossil record all points towards evolution, some creatures still have vestigal traits of their ancestors pop-up (like reported cases of whales with leg-like appendages that were useless to them, the fact that an x-ray of a dolphin's fin looks very much like a hand). I won't discount the idea that God could have made all of creation in seven days, I just find it difficult to believe that He would deliberately mislead us to believe that He didn't exist by providing us with false evidence and the faculty to analyze it.
Additionally scientific thought generally operates on the premise that the most feasible explanation that matches observed conditions is likely to be the true explanation. For scientists to prove the Earth and humanity were engineered in seven days, we would need experimental verification proving the existence of God. This is extremely unlikey.
What we do have, however, is a mound of evidence to the contrary, and the theories we have now do match observed conditions and are useful to us. It's kind of like saying, no offense, that the Sun revolves around the Earth. You can argue your point all you want and try to dig up evidence for it, but the simple fact is it's neither a useful theory nor one that matches observations of any kind.
PS: I believe God does play dice with the universe, but that He also has a Plan.
[ May 01, 2005, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: signine ]
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
quote:I just find it difficult to believe that He would deliberately mislead us to believe that He didn't exist by providing us with false evidence and the faculty to analyze it.
This is where Faith enters.
quote:For scientists to prove the Earth and humanity were engineered in seven days, we would need experimental verification proving the existence of God. This is extremely unlikey.
If God created the Earthin what seemed like 7 days to him, and might be 3-5 Billion (can't remember exactly the number) years, then havent they proved something already?
We will never prove the existance of God,for that is what Faith is for, and until the Rapture, you wont know for sure (and at that point, it is likely that it is too late).
quote:What we do have, however, is a mound of evidence to the contrary, and the theories we have now do match observed conditions and are useful to us. It's kind of like saying, no offense, that the Sun revolves around the Earth. You can argue your point all you want and try to dig up evidence for it, but the simple fact is it's neither a useful theory nor one that matches observations of any kind.
I assume that in "You can argue your point all you want and try to dig up evidence for it", "it" is either the current theories you just mentioned, or our theories about God.
If "it" is God, I will, once again, bring up Faith, and, I might add, that the "theory" of God is the l;ogest running "theory" to date that is not proved or disproved (see Faith).
And, what if all our current theories about many things, say evolution, the Big Bang, etc., are... like the theories in the past that have been disproved (i.e. "world is flat," "Earth is center of Universe," or "Earth revolves around me") and might be disproved one day?
God made us imperfect for a reason, he gave us Choice, and we use it.
Peace, Aphotic
P.S.- I dont mean to be offensive to you, signine, by only replying to you, but your's is the most recent and the one that I am most capible of replying to (plus, it would take too long just to repeat everything...)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About missing links, ridiculous. Hominid fossils are all missing links, except of course that since we've found them, they're not missing anymore. This is a creationist strawman : Every time a link is found, another is demanded between that one and the next bit. "There's still no missing link! Therefore goddidit! Hallelujah!"
If you want some nice missing links, you might take a look at the last post on this page. Which ones are human, which ones are ape? Go on, classify 'em.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
As for the Author... no, not you Mr. Card...
how much of a faithless prick would I be if I said - maybe G-d told a lil' fib or two in creation?
that a heavenly creator is capable of telling a neat, clean, easy story to his creation until it figures out the truth about it's origins?
I mean, really. if we're all going to get so worked up about the Genesis story maybe not being based 100% in fact, we might as well start hating with a passion all the parents who tell their 4 year old child he was brought to them by a stork. Humanity needed many centuries of backround and philosophical thought to divine many essential lessons from the bible. we continue to understand things our fathers could not and our children will comprehend things we could never imagine. so is it so terrible to think that Genesis is, in some ways, a creation story to tell children?
and please don't counter with Sodom and Gommororah and all that - really. a young man 4000 years ago could understand rape far better than he would be able to understand the essential matters of biology, one-celled organisms, and the like.
so... maybe G-d, omnipotent, omniescient, omnipresent as he is - has every right to tell his children a fib once in a while. he knows it'll work out alright now, doesn't he?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
For the life of me, I really don't understand your question. Is it about Evolution? Is it about how to deal with major differences between you and your girlfriend? Where does OSC come in to all this?
Interesting enough, OSC's religion doesn't have just one Creation account. It has the one in Genesis (or would that be two), plus at least two or three others. For whatever that is worth.
Posted by Geekazoid (Member # 7610) on :
as i look at the beggining of the bible it seems to me that the beggining of creation is not of the universe or of earth instead of life on earth. according to my bible it says " In the beggining...When the earth was empty and bare...God said let there be light..." at the beggining The earth had no life for a long time then the first major leep was made the first plant like cells made oxygen making are ozone layer. therefore making it possible to to see the light and not die.
i'm pretty sure you all no the order so
for the second day could be the acual creation of the ozone layer
day 3 The new oxygen enabled tons of plants to live on the bare land therefore the land became vissible
day four as animals started coming out of the water they suddenly had something new in their life, the sun and moon and stars the mysteries of the sky were open
day 5 perfect evolution idea water creature came to aniphibians to reptiles to birds.
day 6 mammals and other animals came on the seen and started taking over witch soon evloved to humans who had so much knowledge that their decisions would affect the entire world and it was their job to protect life with their knowledge.
try using that on them and if that doesn't work just say then why do whales have a bone which proves they walked on land before
boy it hard thinking of theological theorys on a moments notice
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
What denomination are you? Since you say "priest," Catholic is a possibility. The Catholic Church has stated that evolution is OK. I think it's mentioned in the catechism, but I'm not sure.
This might have an effect on your girlfriend.
If you believe the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, then it's not reasonable for her to say you don't believe in Jesus because you don't also accept something the creed doesn't mention. She'll have a contradiction there she'll have to resolve.
Good luck.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Promethius, I listened to the Darwin sermon, and have a few problems with it. I think that the biggest issue I had was that he never did anything besides trying to discredit darwinism. I definitely agree that there are some serious holes in evolution, but that does not tell us that a literal interpretation of the bible is correct. This is not an either/or circumstance. Invalidating evolution is not the same as validating creationism, yet the preacher seems to say that it does. I can agree with the argument that evolution is flawed. Nevertheless, until I hear the creationists give a convincing scenario for how life actually was created, I will not be convinced.
[ May 02, 2005, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: ricree101 ]
Posted by signine (Member # 7671) on :
X12
quote:I assume that in "You can argue your point all you want and try to dig up evidence for it", "it" is either the current theories you just mentioned, or our theories about God.
If "it" is God, I will, once again, bring up Faith, and, I might add, that the "theory" of God is the l;ogest running "theory" to date that is not proved or disproved (see Faith).
And, what if all our current theories about many things, say evolution, the Big Bang, etc., are... like the theories in the past that have been disproved (i.e. "world is flat," "Earth is center of Universe," or "Earth revolves around me") and might be disproved one day?
God made us imperfect for a reason, he gave us Choice, and we use it.
Unfortunately those previous theories were not based on the Scientific Method, which didn't arrive fully until the Royal Society in Britian in the 17th/18th century. I'm sure that a fair amount of biological theory is imperfect, but just because it's imperfect doesn't mean that you toss it out. What was the old adage "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater?"
I wasn't referring to the existence of God (I personally have never doubted that) I was referring to the latest creationist science craze that's been hitting the nation. It drives me insane that people are foolish and ignorant enough to believe that evolution should no longer be taught in schools because it conflicts with their faith. Well I'm not Christian but when I was I remember there being a great number of things that made me question my faith, but just because they made me question my faith I wouldn't deny that they were true.
Yeah there's work that's being done, sure people have found some inconsistencies in the fossil record. Yet we'd have to re-write all of what we know of physics, geology, and biology today to make the observations fit with the story told in the bible. I'm sure there are quite a few people who'd love to see that done, but I distinctly recall one of the biggest things you learn in any true science course is that if your observed data does not fit your theory then your theory is most likely wrong. It doesn't mean God doesn't exist, it just means that Genesis might not be a perfect account of the creation of the universe. It might also, as another suggested in a different way, that what God did to create the Universe was far more complicated than we could throw in a short book.
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
It is something that I was learning in the school since I can remember (always I've been present at a Christian school). The first persons to whom God dictated the Bible could'nt understand the theory of the evolution since scarcely they could write. So, God made clear to them that He had created them, independently of the process necessary to do it.
The same thing happens across the whole former testament. When the reality is too much complicated God uses symbols about transmitting His messages. It is neither truth nor lie, they are symbols, metaphors, to transmit the truth.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
It's too bad that more christian schools aren't like yours frangy.
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
why?
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
Sorry, I thought that you was saying that our way of thinking was bad.
Mmm, I have been in two Christian schools and both were saying the same.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I have tried everywhere, but every priest, minister i find just says "Evolution is not real"
I would suggest that you haven't tried everywhere, since a large number of Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal priests and Protestant pastors have no problem with evolution. If you really think you need clergy support for this, keep looking.
However, I agree with other posters in thinking that the issue with your girlfriend is probably more complex than just "is evolution compatible with Christianity?"
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its funny how they say evolution is not real because the bible says so. The Genesis stories are very contradictory. First G-d makes animals on the 5th day, and makes man on the 6th day. Next it tells us G-d made man, and then made animals to keep him company.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's not at all clear that the account says God "then" made the animals. It does mention it again after the creation of Adam; but then, flashbacks are legal!
[ May 02, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
I find it rather upsetting and distasteful that your girlfriend would tell yoou that you "cannot believe in god or jesus," surely you would know in your heart better then she whether you do or not. There are many interpretations of the bible, and so naturally, whether you and your girlfriend, and the Christians you know would like to admit it or not... the interpretation you believe in is largely the one you have been brought up, or taught to believe.
You must find the true interpretation inside yourself because no single man can claim with absolute certainty that they are the authority on these matters, no man is God. Trust your feelings.
Antony
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
Welcome Antony Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
oooh thankyou kindly!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Evo,
I'm an evangelical atheist, married to a nice Roman Catholic woman (lapsed and relapsed), and with some very religious, opposed-to-(the theory of) evolution Christian friends.
My first thought was to send up the warning flares, but then I started thinking about that couple we know--the wife had been a biologist, and is currently home-schooling her kids with lessons that (as far as I can tell) oppose the theory of evolution. The husband is far more centrist, though to be honest he and I have never discussesd evolution. They get along fine (as far as I can tell). They're both very devout, very active in their church, intelligent, well-respected, etc., etc.
But there's obviously been some compromise between the two of them. It sounds like, from your first posting, that your long-time girlfriend in unwilling to compromise, and that she wants you to do all the accomodating.
That will drive you mad. Mad as in "crazy," as well as mad as in "angry."
Think through the next 5 or 10 years. Think through the raising and teaching of the kids. Is she going to let you present your world-view to them, or will it all be hers? Just the same, the other way around would not work, either.
Just some thoughts.
[ May 02, 2005, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Ricree101-
Did you listen to the sermon above the Darwin one? I really enjoyed that one the most. It was about the historical accuracy of the Bible. I felt the Darwin sermon was the weakest part of that series of sermons I linked to. I think that pastor does a very good job of answering objections to his sermons someone like me who is searching and examining the faith might ask.
Posted by Antony (Member # 7947) on :
"if that doesn't work just say then why do whales have a bone which proves they walked on land before"
Fundamentalist Christians argue against those things by saying god put those things there to test our faith.
I don't think it's a realistic argument and possible insulting to the God in question.
Are we to believe that god is some sort of prankster hiding dinosaur fossils to test our faith? "heh heh heh, We'll see who believes in me now!!"
I doubt it.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Promethius-
No, I didn't listen to them yet. I'll try to get around to it eventually, but at over 30 minutes each I don't have time to do it in one sitting. I really disagreed with his interpretation of some things, and some other things that he said were not particulary correct. That said, it was a fairly well thought out sermon, and I'll make sure to get a chance to listen to the others.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
Yeah, I understand that. As a college student ive got more free time than I know what to do with, im well aware the rest of the world does not have my handy situation.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
Heres a theory I thought up to twist your mind aroung. when an author writes a story he/she never starts at the beggining of creation but at the same time he/she does. In EG Mr. Card does not write about Graff's entire life, and Dink's entire life etc., etc. But at the same time they did not exist untill written so they were created partially into the story. If I haven't lost you yet take it a step further. What if God didn't start at the beggining either. what if at the Biggining of creation he created an 8 billion year backstory. So the story starts with the first people and the rest never actually happened but at the same time did. Just as Dink in EG had time with his parents when he was little but never really did at the same time. Get it?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
0range7Penguin-
Is it possible? I suppose so. That said, there is no evidence to back this up. By that same reasoning you could argue that the world may have been created 1000 years ago or a hundred, or whatever. Short of time travel, I don't think taht we can prove your idea wrong, but there is no reason to think it is correct either.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
And yet Penguin makes an interesting point. As some of you know, I believe God to be unrestricted by time. As such, not being omnipresent per-se, he could exist simultaneuosly in all time periods.
All speculation aside, I've always felt that trying to determine the nature of God, while fascinating, is ultimately fruitless as I think God is immortal and thus understanding the experience of being such is beyond our grasp.
Just as we can never fully understand the experience of being an elephant or a platypus. We can watch their behavior, their lives, but as far as knowing what it really is like to be one, who can really tell.
I think I'd like to be reincarnated as a platypus.
edited for spelling
[ May 02, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Epictetus ]
Posted by HandEyeProtege (Member # 7565) on :
Evo, as a Christian that is soon to be married I can empathize with your situation. My fiancee have had to work through a number of religious type issues, even though we beleive 98% the same thing.
So I commend you for the effort you are putting into this. As someone said earlier, five and ten years down the line a disagreement on this would have much harder consequences. It's not as though you can work out every issue before marriage, but for anything you're aware of, you should at least make sure you can agree to disagree. It sounds like evolution isn't quite there for you yet.
This is one thing think about, a point that recently came to my attention and that I found rang true: there are many things that Christians disagree on, and those things should not be a point of conflict or division. There are certain key points that are fundamental to being a Christian, of course, but for those things that there is no clear right answer - like what to beleive about creation - we should respect each other's views and practices. The prominent example of this in the new testament is circumcision - Paul vehemently says that it is not a necessary ritual, yet he has Timothy get circumcised because he knows that otherwise it would be a barrier in ministering to the Jewish Christians.
I hope this is something you and your girlfriend can work out. Good luck!
Posted by Frangy. (Member # 6794) on :
ricree101
If gone with a time machine, we would come. Because this time was, though it did not manage to happen. As the thoughts of Peter and Val when Ender creates them. When you believe something it becomes true. It is so difficult to explain...
But I do not believe in these theories. The time is too secondary when one sees from out. The past existed like the present exists, though it hadn't happened time.
Definitively, I desist from trying to explain...
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
actually, aren't there theories already that posit that every bloody moment is a new universe? like, a picosecond from now, all that existed now will no longer exist, and there's a new universe. then bing! another one! bing! another one. giving us the illusion of time. gosh I wish I could remember where I read that.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
as for G-d testing our faith - I believe a Creator who cares about his creation - and we can't really understand such a being, 'cause G-d's the creator and the moment you think someone omniescient and omnipotent thinks enough like a human being to be understood - is the moment you have to call him an egotistical, self-serving selfish prick - woah. sorry for the rant. anyway, I'd prefer to think that with the World of Facts and incomplete quantifiable knowledge and with the Bible and incomplete knowledge of the spiritual soul, G-d tests our intelligence, and how we go about the journey of finding truth in our lives and a way of life that works. wow. I'm'onna put this in my LJ, definitely.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
I must apologize beforehand for being a whiny prick. if anyone's offended I hope this dissapears from the forum quickly.
<sigh>. I know I'm not the only Jew who reads these forums. and I know I'm being way to touchy about this - but is there a way that Christians could refer to my religion's foundation that doesn't sound like they're saying it's no longer valid? I have, probably like most Jews, far more Christian friends than Jewish ones, and - I dunno. for a while it's irked me every time I hear Old Testament, or Former Testament, and New Testament and Renewed testament.
The books of the Tanakh and the books of the Christian faith were finalized within, what, a hundred, two hundred years of each other?
so why's it gotta be such an essential part of the biblical vernacular that even my Jewish professors call it the OLD Testament? it's as young as the "New" one and we're still figuring new stuff out from it today.
. sorry for being such a killjoy and a jerk.
and yes, I did just read Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
and - wow. I'm sorry I didn't notice Antony's post. at least half of what I wrote was a total waste, he'd already said it. sorry Antony.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If it makes you feel any better, I consider the Jewish faith precisely as valid as the Christian.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Here's a puzzler:
How do we know that God didn't just create us all, hmm...let's see..five minutes ago?
He could have given us all a unique back-story, the whole world pre-history, the buried fossils and the books written about digging them up. All the birds and fish and cars and planes in motion.
The whole thing.
I mean, it's certainly within his power, right? And he's certainly within his rights to do such a thing. And He could make it so that we'd never know, right?
So why do you think that your mom is your mom, or your dad is your dad? Or your wife, or your children? God's created your relations, and your emotionsd, and your loves, and your hates. He's created your knowledge and your skills and your desires, and...
Wait a minute, this sounds like the plot from "Dark City"...
So: 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years, or 5 minutes. If one makes sense, then they all make sense.
There's a sale on e-bay, for nice, off-white canvas coats with sleeves that tie in the back. See you there.
Posted by Von (Member # 1146) on :
Hmm...not sure Evo is here anymore, but if you are, here are my thoughts:
1. While husband and wife don't agree on everything, it is important for you two to have some mutual understanding about this topic. While you might not see why it is so important, if it is so important to her, then it is important to your marriage.
2. There might be some agreable middle ground here. I for one, solidly believe scripture would have us believe that creation was a rapid affair. I have studied many areas of science which suggest this, but there are many scientists that can show things the other way too. Why? Well, science is not truth, it is just a method we use to try and discover truth. So, science can be used to show anything -- even two contradictory ideas. While I gravitate strongly toward a literal 7-days of creation, I find it easier to let up on that, pursuing more important truths. For example. Do you both acknowlege:
a) The Bible is the inerrant word of God, meant to be taken as truth.
b) Man was created differently and separately from plants and animals, set apart and set above the preceding.
These feel like non-negotiables in your situation. That is, if these are not agreed on, don't marry, or re-think your belief. Then there is a second tier which is even more helpful to agree upon, but it depends on you guys' elasticity. Can you further agree that:
c) God, as we understand Him from scripture, would not use an evolutionary process to produce man, that is, a process of millions of years of semi-human death and suffering is incompatable with His original purpose for creation.
d) The Bible should frame our understanding of science, not the other way around.
My sense is that if you agree on all of these things, you have agreed on the key underlying issues that motivates the overall tension between you two.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You do realise that you are writing utter, total nonsense, right? I mean, your sentences are grammatical and all, but then so is "The orange farbled the yellowry lovingly."
First, there are no scientists who believe in young-earth creationism. There are people with (mostly faked) degrees, but that's not the same thing.
Second, 'science as a method we use to find truth' kind of implies that it cannot show two things simultaneously, unless you are postulating two different contradictory truths.
Third, the Bible cannot be used to frame our understanding of science. It is not in any sense a scientific tract. At most it can be considered a moral text, though frankly I find it rather disgusting even on that level. Read Paul on slavery and women sometime and you'll see what I mean. But science and morals just don't intersect, nor does science and the Bible.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Of course it's not nonsense -- totally, or even in part. If it were you couldn't disagree with it. Nonsense is neither true nor false.
Now, science is not a method that finds truth. It can't prove anything. It only disproves things. If you try over and over to disprove a scientific theory and you can't, confidence in it builds . . . and then, hundreds of years later maybe (as with Newtonian mechanics), it breaks, and we find something better. The theory was only sort of true, we find. Which isn't bad.
(And since science can't prove things, it certainly can't prove contradictory things -- if it's done right.)
And of course the Bible can be used to frame our understanding of science. It doesn't provide science, but it does provide philosophy (among other things), which not only frames understanding of other things but provides a basis for it. The Bible tells us the natural world is created by God (and thus not beneath our notice) but it is not itself possessed of consciousness (and thus it isn't wrong to experiment on it). It's no accident that modern science developed in Europe and nowhere else, despite the obvious inventiveness of places with other perspectives.
Creationism surely isn't a scientific theory. Scientific theories are disproveable by observation of nature, and there's no observation that could disprove creationism: anything can be explained by "God made it that way." That's fine so far as it goes. Lots of good things aren't scientific theories. But since observations are irrelevant to creationism, there's no point in going on about observations confirming it, as creationists do. When any observation can be explained by the theory, it's not really interesting that the ones we make are explained. Another set would do as well.
Creationism can't run into a problem with science, since science is irrelevant to it. Creationism does run into a problem with theology, though. We see things in the universe that are greater than 6005 light years away; so if God made the world then, He must have put the light out into deep space, already headed here, to make it look like the light came from those objects. He littered the earth with fossilized skeletons of creatures that never lived. He put the continents in motion and shaped them so it would look like they fit together once, in a past that never happened. WHy would He do all these things to trick us into believing something that isn't true? Believing he does gives us a very different image of God than we get in the Bible. For this reason, I have to drop creationism: not because I don't believe in the Bible, but because I do.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, the God who deceived Abraham into thinking he would have to kill his son; the God who gambled with Satan over Job's fate; the God who routinely ordered the slaughter of entire cities, down to babies in the womb - that God might well perpetrate a deception on a literally universal scale. It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
My advice: read the book Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Brown. He argues, successfully I think, that the evolutionary view is MORE conducive to religious faith than is the literal creationist view.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: First, there are no scientists who believe in young-earth creationism. There are people with (mostly faked) degrees, but that's not the same thing.
False. I know several. None of them think science can be used to support this belief, but not everyone believes science is a god to be worshiped absolutely -- not even all scientists.
quote: Here's a puzzler:
How do we know that God didn't just create us all, hmm...let's see..five minutes ago?
He could have given us all a unique back-story, the whole world pre-history, the buried fossils and the books written about digging them up. All the birds and fish and cars and planes in motion.
The whole thing.
I mean, it's certainly within his power, right? And he's certainly within his rights to do such a thing. And He could make it so that we'd never know, right?
So why do you think that your mom is your mom, or your dad is your dad? Or your wife, or your children? God's created your relations, and your emotions, and your loves, and your hates. He's created your knowledge and your skills and your desires, and...
Wait a minute, this sounds like the plot from "Dark City"...
So: 5,000 years ago, or 10,000 years, or 5 minutes. If one makes sense, then they all make sense.
Yup. So?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Firstly:
quote: It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
Personally, I have a hard time believing God would punish anyone for using the brain that he gave them. There are some things on this Earth that I cannot believe God would have put here without some purpose and I honestly don't think that God's purpose is to condemn as many people to Hell as possible.
I think the true measure of a god is not vengence, power or knowledge, but instead a god that strives to help others become like himself/herself. I think that using one's brain in either the capacity of science or of faith may indeed be part of such a process.
Secondly: the matter of religion is always going to be fogged by your own point of view. If you believe that what you can observe, test and record is the only reliable source of truth, you're not going to be persuaded by one who believes that truth can only be achieved by reason or even someone who attempts to observe what truth they can through observation and reason, and takes what they don't know on faith.
(I apologize for the frequent use of political correctness in any of my posts. Discussing religion is metaphorically like walking on eggshells. That being said, I also apologize for the potential lack of political correctness in my posts as well.)
[ May 04, 2005, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: Epictetus ]
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
i am indeed still here
and i have read everything and i've been talking with my girlfriend about these things, and we've already agreed we will bring the child up according to religion, but we will send him to a school where religion is not part of the teachings. This os to give the child/children the ability to form opinions on their religion and decide to choose it or not.
Her fear was having a child who grew up faithless. I explained that faithless doesn't mean worthless and she got upset but finally agreed to let our children learn everything they can and make their desicions as we did. Ofcourse we will send them to sunday schools so they can be taught about religion.
I went to in international school and gained many friends from every religion, and it opened my eyes to the world, and i would hate for any child of mine to groww up completely blinkered view of the world assuming anyone who is not of his/her religion is evil.
I thank everyone for their replies,and i hope i haven't caused any problems between friends Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I explained that faithless doesn't mean worthless and she got upset...."
Forgive me for pointing this out, but this seems like a very basic ethical disagreement. I would be reluctant, were I you -- and were I bordering on faithlessness, as you are -- to consider marrying someone who honestly believed this.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
i am not boardering on faithlessness. i believe deeply in my god, and in jesus christ.
my problem was the bible is very vague about alot of things and i could find noone to explain these vagunesses to me.
As to my girlfriend. She knows faithlessness doesn't mean worthless it just needed to be bought up in the situation to help me explain.
We will both try everything in our power to give our children the best possible home, and teach them the ways of god. I just did not want to let my children grow up without seing every angle. Religion is a choice.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
From what I've heard, it sounds like the point you need to make is that having a different belief is not the same as being faithless.
Posted by Evo (Member # 7940) on :
regardless of phraseology we've sorted our problems out, and i recieved an awful lot of help from this post thanks to everyone Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Actually, the God who deceived Abraham into thinking he would have to kill his son; the God who gambled with Satan over Job's fate; the God who routinely ordered the slaughter of entire cities, down to babies in the womb - that God might well perpetrate a deception on a literally universal scale. It's just the sort of thing that would give him a chuckle, sending people to hell for believing in the evidence he gave them.
This is a "fallacy of distraction." The slaughter of the Canaanites was not a global deception, but instead was the slaughter of the Canaanites. The trials of Job were not a global deception, but instead were trials of Job. They're just ways to change the subject.
The sacrifice of Isaac is at least relevant. However, there is a major difference between taking Abraham through this one-day drama to show he could be committed to God without killing family, and a vast network of false clues designed to deceive the entire human population forever.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The slaughter of the Canaanites was not a global deception, but instead was the slaughter of the Canaanites. The trials of Job were not a global deception, but instead were trials of Job.
I think the point here is that someone capable of genocide might also be considered capable of falsehood.
If your defense is that, yes, God is guilty of genocide, but falsehood is something else altogether, that's hardly a ringing endorsement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The situations are not identical, but I think they are rather indicative of character. Why should a murderer not be a liar? Why should a torturer not be a deceiver?
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
When and why did you people get so hung up about HELL??? ok. I'm sorry, I've yet to read the Christian Gospel. It's only so far on my reading list 'cause it's all I can do to remember months later what I read in the Tanakh. ... but where'd all this Hell crap come from? when did people get so afraid of G-d that they thought - oh crap, if I have an evil thought and forget to think of G-d in my last moments I'll be screwed into an eternal punishment of flame and blades and heavy weights and ice and frostbite and bla bla blah, torture torture torture. Why are so many people convinced that G-d's love is so fickle? Where did that start? please somebody put up a few quoties. or better yet, if any of you are good history buffs, tell me when people first started writing about places of eternal flame and torture for people who shat into the wrong hand and didn' warn their neighbors.
As for me, I take solace in knowing, that is, having faith, that when my life is over, G-d doesn't stop loving me. The testament to his/her - (darn unknowable mysteries, it's so difficult to place down proper names like he or she or it or whatever) love for every sentient creature is this bloody fantastic, endlessly complicated UNIVERSE!
really. A fella what's going to create CREATION -by whatever means he did it - is going to punish people for disagreeing with HOW he did it? How many artists get pissed when people praise his work and then disagree with him on how he did said work? I realize I'm trying to rationalize G-d as a character, which we all tend to do, so I'm going to stop before I write even more stupid things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: The situations are not identical, but I think they are rather indicative of character. Why should a murderer not be a liar? Why should a torturer not be a deceiver?
Well, KoM, I think you are a jerk and tend to hyperbole, but I'm fairly certain you don't torture kittens. One character trait does not imply another.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
and this slaughter of the Canaanites - this was - where was this again? I remember a rabbi saying - I dunno. giving me examples about nasty stuff in the bible, as a reminder that it's as much a history of the Jewish people as it is anything else, especially the stuff in prophets. - anyway, he was telling me we didn't actually commit genocide. wierd enough that we were ordered to, we never really did it. we just attacked some people we were ordered to exterminate, what, three or four times, over a couple of generations - and they just kept coming. then again, I don't think it was canaanites. think the name for these folks started w/ an H.
But yeah, you can easily read the bible and decide, yeah, G-d's a prick. aren't you a prick for washing your hands when you get a harmless lil' food stain on them? you're killing countless microorganisms!
aw, damnit. I did it again. ok, I run now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Perhaps you are referring to the Amalekites? And actually, yes, we did wipe 'em out -- or very close. Perhaps we should have done a better job. Then there wouldn't have been a Haman.
OTOH, I do hope you didn't just compare an entire nation of people to bacteria.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, KoM, I think you are a jerk and tend to hyperbole, but I'm fairly certain you don't torture kittens. One character trait does not imply another.
You know, I do not think being insulting on a message board is quite as despicable as wiping out entire peoples for not circumcising their sons. In fact, I don't think it's even as bad as torturing kittens. I am reasoning from the worse trait to the less-bad; you are going from the not-very-serious to the worse. I am thinking you might legitimately reason that a kitten-torturer is a jerk. But perhaps you theists have different standards of morality. Here is Numbers 31, for example :
quote:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho. 13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp. 14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Now, killing every male is not completely unreasonable, and looting happens in every war. But really, women and children, and then keep the virgins as slaves? This is seriously unpleasant stuff, ordered by a man who was apparently the mouthpiece of Yahweh.
Still, it is just possible that Moses was acting on his own authority here. What does Yahweh say himself? Here is the first book of Samuel, chapter 15 :
quote:Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
Well, that's pleasant, isn't it? Note also that this occurs 450 years after the flight from Egypt, to a generation as far removed from the original 'crime' of resisting a bunch of ragtag nomads invading their land as we are from the beginning of the Wars of Religion in Europe. As a matter of fact, Saul is cast down from being king of Israel because, although he kills every woman and child, he spares the king, Agag, and very sensibly steals the cattle and sheep instead of killing them. In other words, he's chucked out for not being quite genocidal enough.
Now, it is true that the Jews weren't just nasty to out-groups, they tended to slaughter each other also. Here's 2 Chronicles, for example :
quote:Then the men of Judah gave a shout: and as the men of Judah shouted, it came to pass, that God smote Jeroboam and all Israel before Abijah and Judah. 16 And the children of Israel fled before Judah: and God delivered them into their hand. 17 And Abijah and his people slew them with a great slaughter: so there fell down slain of Israel five hundred thousand chosen men.
I tend to doubt the number a bit, but apparently something rather nasty occurred in that battle. Still, at least they were fighting men, and not women and children. That sort of treatment is only given out to infidels.
Getting back onto the subject of divine lies, here is Yahweh promising Canaan to Moses, in Exodus 33 :
quote:And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
Um, right. So how is it that they still existed when the Jews got there, and as you point out, resisted invasion quite successfully for a long time?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
There is no verse in Exodus 33 containing those words.
Reasoning from an awful trait to a less-bad one is still unsound. Even if it can be established that, say, some accused serial killer really did murder seven hundred people per night, this would not imply that he was responsible for my great-aunt's gout.
[ May 04, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, but it might reasonably imply that he could be expected to lie without any great qualms about it. As for the Bible quote, I suggest you take another look at the King James Version. .
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I know plenty of people who kill chickens and goats and cows who are not liars. I know plenty of people who kill whole colonies of insects who don't lie. Can you imagine what they would be thinking about us if they could understand what was happening?
I realize that brings up the question of what God thinks of us. But, isn't that the point? The nature and personality of God is different from our mortal selves. The Scriptures have said time and time again that He doesn't lie. Its not in His nature. On the other hand, that IS one of the traits God's prophets are always struggling with or the subject wouldn't come up as often as it does. Now, I can see how you can find killing would be on equal footing with lying when we are talking about a MORTAL person. But, God is Eternally beyond mere human traits or concerns.
You can hate God for what he has done. I won't argue with that. If you want to call him a murderer than by all means do so; until the judgement day when God (if he exists as I believe that he does) will decide your fate. Can't wait to see you call Him that to His face. However, one thing he doesn't do is lie, or at least there isn't anywhere in the Scriptures (as history of God if you will) where that has happened. If anything, God is TOO up front. If he wants to kill you, He will tell you in your face that is what he will do. He honestly does what he says, even if what he does is grotesque to your feelings.
[ May 04, 2005, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Occasional ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh well, the old theist refusal of responsibility again. Why should I not judge someone just because he holds life-and-death power over me? You might as well say that the Jews at Auschwitz had no right to judge their killers.
Now, before someone invokes Godwin's Law on me again, let me point out that I am quite literally accusing Yahweh of genocide. As far as I can see, the actions described in the quotes above are precisely on a level with Hitler's. Thus a comparison with the Holocaust is not the out-of-proportion hyperbole Godwin's Law is intended to prevent, it is an exact analogy.
I cannot judge anything, whether human or divine, based on its own assertion of utter superiority. To be consistent, I would then have to accept white-supremacy theories; assertions that the 'Aryan' race is superior have just as much proof as assertions that Yahweh is divine and beyond human comprehension. I can only judge by actions and consequences.
Looking at the Old Testament, I see a perfectly comprehensible being : A god of war, "the Lord God of Hosts", who punishes at a whim and brags about it. To convince me that Yahweh is above human judgment, you must show some kind of superiority of behaviour; its own word is not enough, and that's all you have.
In fact, you'd first have to convince me of the mere existence of Yahweh. The incomprehensible part, to me, is how people can wish for such an obviously evil being to exist, and yet believe they are acting in a rational fashion.
EDIT : Also, your assertion that Yahweh does not lie. Let me again call your attention to the story of Abraham's sacrifice and the promise to drive the Canaanites from their land.
[ May 04, 2005, 09:39 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Billy (Member # 7809) on :
I am an athiest
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Can't wait to see you call Him that to His face."
I just want to point out that I've gone on the record as saying that, if I'm ever faced with God and commanded to worship Him, I will absolutely demand an explanation from Him about all the death and suffering out there before I do so. A God who could not -- or would not -- explain this would not be worth my admiration.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am an athiest
No, you're not. I'm athier than you.
Seriously, what was this intended to contribute to the discussion? If you want to post just for posting, why don't you dig up the hug thread or one of the other fluffies from the other side?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
The word "Perizzites" does not appear in Exodus 33 (according to the Electronic Text Center, http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html ), but it does appear in Exodus 3, 23, and 34. Here's what it says in Exodus 23:23-23:
"But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and bring thee in unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites: and I will cut them off."
We could leave of the "if" part. This is called "Dowdification."
[ May 04, 2005, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Will, I would not like to accuse anyone of deliberately lying, but you are most certainly mistaken. Here are the first few verses of Exodus 33 from your link :
quote:1: And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: 2: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite: 3: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way. 4: And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.
Perhaps you were using a search function rather than actually looking at the page in question? I suggest you try again with the singular. Badly-programmed search algorithms are finicky like that.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
and my brain just grew a good 5 sizes larger.
... Wow. I've got a LOT! of reading to do. but I can definitely say for now that I don't believe much of what was written in the Torah. I've generally looked at it in a few different ways. I've generally believed it was written by various inspired writers. I've generally believed it was written for it's time, and compiled again and again for it's time and for soon after. I have always believed that the best idea with holy scriptures was NEVER! to stop writing, and say - there. the story is over. that's it, those are the five books of moses, they're the most holy, NEver. EVER. Change them to suit the spiritual needs of future generations.
I believe religions have to change. I believe the spiritual needs of people today differ from the spiritual needs of people 2000+ years ago. And I am saddened that people continually forget this.
... That said, I've generally been taught that much of the Bible was written as history, or what amounted for history for people 2000 years ago. Documents of the time would use extreme language, such as - MURDER EVERY LAST WOMAN AND CHILD! RAPE ALL THE VICTIMS! and actually, most likely, they'd send everyone from the town running and screaming, kill a few folks as examples, and generally get back to the buisness of running an army, country, etc. Extremist genocidal language was everywhere when these books got written. the touble is we don't ratinally look at history to see what happenes. the Amonites keep coming back. that means we DID NOT KILL THEM ALL. not sure if there's examples for the others, but I refuse to believe the predecesors to Jews today continually, seriously, attempted genocide. it wasn't a serious idea then - it was just words to make harsh language to make contracts sound far heavier.
Anyway, whether it was true or not, the Torah, and the Tanakh, were/are the spiritual beginnings of a religion that by the time the Talmud was created - while we would write death penalties for things as silly as lying naked in bed w/ someone of the same sex - we couldn't stomach carrying out the death penalty. period.
I guess for a long time we kept to a habit of writing really nasty laws, and at the same time countering them with commentary to keep us sane and rational as a religion. to keep us, hopefully, growing, and learning further the nature of G-d, a being so generous and powerful that it managed to CREATE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE! frankly - with a scale of art like that - I'd be happy to count just how many people have died throughout history, and blame them all on the Creator of the universe, as, inevitably, all deaths are his responsibility, having started the story - and still thank him. look outside people! look at a sunset, look at the beauty of your parents and your children, look at the wonderful, horrible story of it all and say you're not terribly thankful that it's there - that you wouldn't give about anything to keep it, your life and the lives of everything you love. The gift is that we have someone to thank. even if we can never understand him. even if, inevitably, we need to blame the bad on him too.
Thank you God, creator of the universe. Thank you for billions upon billions of lives (I'm counting animals and plants) - oh, and hopefully billions more out there in the universe, hopefully even comprehensible to us, whom you helped to tell different stories for their different histories. Thank you for our crazy, mixed up world where no two people think perfectly alike, where change happens every day. thank you for this fantastically long story, which for all we know is more than we deserve. dyeinu. but it is more than sufficient. Even if I bear the guilt of Jews who committed wanton murder just to have a home thousands of years ago. even if I bear the guilt of Jews who do the same today, if that's what they do defending Israel. I haven't really come to a conclusion on that mess, and I don't hope to soon, it's a big, scary idea - even if I must bear this guilt, and even if we all must - all the guilt of the whole world I'll bear and still thank you because I AM STILL HERE.
and of course, if there's something after this, I'll demand an explanation. but for now? the world suits me. all it's crap? well, eventually I might see a fix to it, and then we'll have more problems, and more stories. that's life, folks! love it, do your best to grow with it and fix it, or get out.
<whew. ok. time to be bashed. I know it'll happen sooner or later, you guys'll get angry and block me>
[ May 05, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Rose, you're pushing the envelope. Please watch your language and your tone.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:I just want to point out that I've gone on the record as saying that, if I'm ever faced with God and commanded to worship Him, I will absolutely demand an explanation from Him about all the death and suffering out there before I do so. A God who could not -- or would not -- explain this would not be worth my admiration.
I tend to think it's all a matter of perspective. I like to think a dialogue of this sorts would go something like this:
GOD: "Remember twenty three years ago when you stubbed your toe?"
PERSON: "Not particularly."
GOD: "I do. There was this doorjam, and you hit it. It really hurt for a few hours. But after you stubbed it, you never ran into that particular doorjam again."
PERSON: "I don't think I get your point. I'm asking about massive big-scale suffering. People getting wiped out, cancer, AIDS, rapes.'
GOD: "So, I'm not being shouted down by you anymore for the stubbed toe because you viewed it as fleeting?"
PERSON: "I don't think I blamed you at all for that."
GOD: "You sure yelled my name out pretty loud when it happened."
PERSON: "It was just an expression. And Sure. You're off the hook now, because it wasn't serious. I mean, it didn't kill me or scar me for life!"
GOD: "You need to get some perspective. When you look at the eternities, and how fleeting life is on earth, any pain that happens there, in the scheme of things with eternity in mind, will be as fleeting as your forgotton toe-stubbing. The lessons you've learned, and the empathy you will have gathered for those in similar situations will stay with you, but the actual pain is gone."
PERSON: "But you allowed people to DIE!"
GOD: "Well, you died too, yet you're talking to me. How permanent was that?"
[ May 05, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So it would be ok, then, if I killed you because God told me to? Not to mention raping your wife and daughter. Or maybe I should just sell them into slavery, there's a limit to how many women I really need.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
You're trying to apply a situation that existed at a specific place and time, for a specific purpose - an exception - and are trying to get me to justify it as the rule.
Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, I see. So it's ok when the rapes and selling-into-slavery only happens to foreigners who lived a long time ago? Suppose Yahweh has a reason to want your wife raped? Maybe she needs to learn something? Perhaps she has been known to speak up in church - not kosher, you know. But even so, burning in Hell forever and ever seems just a little harsh, so maybe just dying painfully would be sufficient punishment.
Incidentally, comparing death to a stubbed toe, or humans to non-sentient insects as someone else was doing a few posts ago, is utterly disgusting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Well, you died too, yet you're talking to me. How permanent was that?""
Taal, I'm not sure you can apply this logic, because it suggests that nothing which occurs during life on this Earth particularly matters. There are very few religions which actually believe this.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I think when it comes down to it, actions, choices, and decisions are what eternally matter. It's these things that are important in developing character, and it's these things that carry into the eternities. Everything else is background noise, and stubbed toes.
[ May 05, 2005, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Excellent! So you won't mind if I kill you and take all your stuff? I could be doing with a new computer.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I think you'd have far more to worry about from my friends, family, and the law than anything I'd have to think about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not relevant. Stick to the point, please. Since what happens on this life is transitory, is it, or is it not, OK that I kill you?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Eternally, it's okay for me. For you, for selfish motivations of greed, it's Pretty Terrible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So then, was it OK for the Jews to kill all the Amalekites, Canaanites, and so on, out of greed for their land?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Ah, now we're getting somewhere! So then, was it OK for the Jews to kill all the Amalekites, Canaanites, and so on, out of greed for their land?
It wasn't greed for the land, and you're displaying your lack of understanding of the situation.
First of all: the land was originally promised and given to the Israelites. Those who lived there were invaders. Also, for the proper way of life to continue without idolatry sinking in, the invaders influence was needed to be removed. In many cases, it was made quite explicit that greed wasn't the case - in many of those incidents, they were explicitly commanded NOT to loot them afterwards. Those who did were punished.
It was God keeping a promise he'd made before. Those who the Israelites didn't wipe out came back and caused them tons of trouble down the road.
They're inheritance had been stolen away from them - this was part of the plan for them to reclaim it.
It had nothing to do with the fact that their neighbor had an X-Box and they kind of wanted one themself.
Once again - you're taking it out of historical context. An entire nation's rightful existence was at stake, not one individual's greedy desire.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
First of all :
Talk about buying into self-serving propaganda! I mean, seriously. I think you would have believed Hitler was justified in wiping out the Jews, had he won the war and been able to spew his propaganda into your tender young ears. After all, they were clearly threatening the rightful existence of the German nation.
In the second place, why is the existence of the Israelite nation more important than that of the Amalekite nation? I'm sure their gods had promised them that land, too, when they took it away from whoever was there before them. If I'm going to grant the existence of one tribal god, why not all of them?
In the third place, you clearly aren't reading the quotes I posted. The Israelites are not fighting a war against people who stand between them and their promised land; they are returning more than 400 years later to take revenge for some inconvenience they had suffered on the way to the Palestine. They are now well-established as a power in the land; the Amalekites are no threat to them.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Actually, he was finishing the job.
quote:In the third place, you clearly aren't reading the quotes I posted.
No, you're wrong again. I understand your view, and why you interpret it the way you do. Try doing the same. I didn't say you had to agree, just try to understand. There's a difference.
It won't kill you to try and be civil.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
When you can articulate why the Israelites are important and the Amalekites are not, I'll give your views consideration.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If you're not going to give his views consideration, then stop interrogating him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Fine, I've considered. I still stand by the question : Why are the Israelites important and the Amalekites not? Are we not all humans alike? Just how racist is Yahweh, anyway?
Posted by X12 (Member # 5867) on :
I would commend any man (or woman, for that matter) who would kill me, rape my child and wife, from a commandment of God.
Truth, as it is, would show, for if the person was lying, there is a good chance that they would be condemed to Hell. If they were telling the truth, then he was a tool of God that was needed in His plan.
We live in a superficial world that means nothing to us, is the long run. I'm not saying you should give up life or stop caring, just try to understand the impossible (yes, it sounds like a monolithic task, but it must be done).
Our actions are strictly to give us an oppratunity to chose our eternity. For those who believe in Fate, destiny, or think that we are just weaves in His quilt, understand that He is above time, He knows everything, He can do anything, yet He gives us an oppratunity to chose. Even though He already knows the outcome, we still need the chance. And there is reason for this, but I need not go into that, for the Book is most likely readily avaliable to you, even if you don't believe.
NO matter what you believe in, we can never know while on this Earth what happens after we die. Yes, we have our beliefs, our speculations, but nomatter what you believe, I charge you that you can never understand it, our ignorance will remain.
Love is what you make of it, even to Him.
Peace, Aphotic
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Wow.
Anyway, in answer to a much earlier post: I also wouldn't accuse someone of lying without solid reason. In fact, I'd be so reluctant to do it I wouldn't even bring it up without solid reason.
You're right, K o M: I put in "Perizzites" when I should have put in "Perrizite." There is a reference in Exodus 33. My mistake.
Your objection -- that, in Ex 33:2, God promised that his Angel would finish driving out the locals before the Israelites arrived, and obviously did not do this -- puzzled me, but the verse seemed to say this, and I couldn't find anything in any commentaries. So I posted it on a message board, and got this answer. It seems pretty obviously true; at least, "before" often means location, rather than time, in KJV.
Please pardon the lack of diplomacy on the part of the answerer.
quote:The argument doesn't occur to most reasonable people because of its outright silliness.
He is looking for a technicality here that doesn't exist. When the text says 'before', he wants to force it to mean "prior to", and it does not.
When someone says "I stood before the president", it means he stood in the presence of the president, not that he stood someplace previous to the president. While it is true that the word CAN mean 'prior to', it does not here. This is obvious from the other commands given concerning driving the inhabitants of the land out.
Thanks for making me think. It's sort of like when someone says, "You said you ate dinner with Sally -- but I saw you, and you were eating with a fork! She was just sitting there!" Amazing that something like that could stump me. I've been hearing the word "before" all my life!
[ May 06, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, no. I was not interpreting the verse to mean "out before you arrive", but "they will be running to get away from you". As in, "I drove the cattle before me to the market." As Rose pointed out, the Canaanites did no running when the Israelites arrived; they stood their ground and fought.
Compare the words of Genghis Khan : "To see your enemies driven before you; to take their horses and their goods, and hear the lamentations of their women : That is best in life." This is the sense of 'driving before' I was using.
In any case, though, lying is really a lesser crime. Remind me again why the genocidal war with the Amalekites is a peachy-keen thing to do.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
I... I don't really think I'm a good, faithful Jew anymore. somehow, faithful Jews, faithful Christians and Muslims are supposed to say "G-d works in mysterious ways, and we must submit to his will, because he is good, he is all that is good, divinity is perfect."
but - I can say this. I love G-d. and I love Torah. I love it despite it's terrible shortcomings, which I accept as just that, shortcomings, I accept our terrible history, because it is a part of who we are today, it is a part of what drives us to the decision, to others, do not what is hateful to yourself.
I love G-d because G-d is something unknowable, something not understandable - and I pity G-d. because however much of the bible comes from his hand, and however much isn't - he's responsible for all those murders. he's responsible for every death in history. I - for a long time I've not understood how someone on the throne of all creation, with all that power and all that knowledge - how they could be sane. to create creation, and to create us. It is in general, to me - a terrible mistake to create something with it's own mind and tell it "You must choose to love me, for that is the right thing, and without my love, you are nothing." it's dangerous and it is wrong.
I love Judiasm, I believe it is a religion that has grown. we see that, don't we? we see that, despite our possibly genocidal past, Jews grew to be lovers of Life, of Knowledge, of the Search for Truth. it is this way for many religions. Mind you, Christianity started w/ the death of it's savior and G-d didn't set them to mass slaughter for quite a while. Please forgive my being casual about that, but I figure it's important to note that Jews are not the only ones who can say G-d told them to kill people.
it's a terrible terrible mess though. and ultimately I have to face what I don't believe. I do not believe G-d is perfect. I believe the spirituality of G-d grows with mankind. I believe he grows as he watches us grow, as my parents have grown for raising me. I'm only so lucky they didn't have a nasty streak in my youth comparable to G-ds.
I actually - I actually only today just found a quote that somewhat reflects how I feel about G-d. and of all places, it came from an old DC comic book. John Constantine: Hellblazer Issue 114. One of the big stories in this Comic book series is sort of what we're talking about. that G-d's a bit nutters to go around commanding us to commit genocide, and to move whole nations to teach lessions to the Jewish People - 'cause that's what we're taught all this death, and the later diasporas, were about, that G-d wanted us to understand what it takes to make a nation, and wanted to remind us that we're nothing without his love, which we recieve by being good to each other AND doing sacrifices at the proper times and whatnot - so G-d's a bit nutters to demand we go around committing mass murders and then say "LOVE ME!"... anyway, here's the quotie. as spoken by King Arthur to the title character.
oh G-d please don't let me get sued. be offended all you like but don't let me get sued. and if anybody who runs these forums thinks I might get sued, please warn me and knock this post off quicklike!
"Our God is ... Confused, John, and we are helping him at every turn. That is our purpose. By each of our actions, we mirror his soul. 'Tis your duty to God, then, to decide who you'll be."
this probably was in turn quoted from something else. it's part of a feeling I think people get when they have to face that people have done horrible horrible shit for their faith in a power greater than death.
scary stuff, ey?
but, yeah. Ultimately, I don't think the story's over. I don't think G-d is dead, I don't think he's perfect, I don't think he's any kind of ghost, really. G-d is someone with too much power and too much responsibility and we're here to help G-d understand itself. maybe we're enough, or maybe we're not the only ones helping G-d to understand itself. but that's not important yet.
I don't know where I'm going with this yet, but I'll post what I've got for now.
Posted by Rose the ____ (Member # 7791) on :
I'm sorry I hadn't followed the forum, and I'm sorry for my latest post. I'm too - immature in my ideas and my writings to stay on here. this'll be my last post. sorry folks.
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
boy it hard thinking of theological theorys on a moments notice
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
. sorry for being such a killjoy and a jerk.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)