It's a poll. Yes or no. Results to be tallied later.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
No no no. That's 3 nos.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Depends, how long were all those Biblical years?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Well...I can only account for 29 years...so...
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I doubt this is going to be much of a poll. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any posters who believe in young earth creationism. I suppose there may be a few, but I expect them to be hugely outnumbered. Assuming people bother to post much at all, anyways.
And if it wasn't clear already, my answer is no.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
no
(edited to note that this is my opinion despite pressure from "the Spagehetti Monster Creationism Cult" that wishes me to assert that the Spaghetti Monster created the Earth last Tuesday, from a Meatball that got too cold. Science, History, and Memory that we have that go beyond last Tuesday are either tricks placed on us by the evil Mozzarella Lord, or just plain sinful.)
[ November 16, 2006, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
No.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
There is at least one person, can't remember the name of the person. He even argued that things like the Grand Canyon occur when time was sped up early on, or something close to that.
By the way, no.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Ron Lambert is a young earth creationist.
And my answer is no.
msquared
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
No.
Although, like Dan_raven, I am starting to be swayed by the majestic noodley appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He's just too delicious to disbelieve.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ooh, is this where we get to report on other posters so the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Storm Troops can take them away? Well, Lisa is an ID-er! And Farmgirl (I'm pretty sure) is a YEC.
As for me, no.
(Well, duh.)
Posted by Luet13 (Member # 9274) on :
No.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
No. I agree with ricree101 - this won't be much of a poll. I think maybe six people that I know of here are either YECs or of other belief systems that may lead them to believe that the Earth is literally 6,000 years old.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You Flying Spaghetti Monster beleivers are all so foolish. It's commonly accepted and scientifically proven that the universe was created by the Giant Pink Unicorn. Don't be ignorant.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
I'm going to play Devil's advocate, as it were, and say that the world is indeed less than 6,000 years old.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300: I'm going to play Devil's advocate, as it were, and say that the world is indeed less than 6,000 years old.
So shouldn't you, like, advocate for the position or something? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I do accept intelligent design. I just happen to believe God's design took billions of years rather than thousands.
Posted by Avatar300 (Member # 5108) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Avatar300: I'm going to play Devil's advocate, as it were, and say that the world is indeed less than 6,000 years old.
So shouldn't you, like, advocate for the position or something?
Okay, fine. The world is less than or equal to 6,000 years old. We know because God and the bible tell us so. Any who don't believe should repent now or face eternal damnation in Hell, or whatever.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Ooh, is this where we get to report on other posters so the Evil Atheist Conspiracy Storm Troops can take them away? Well, Lisa is an ID-er! And Farmgirl (I'm pretty sure) is a YEC.
Shouldn't that be "fewer than 6,000 years"?
And yes, the Earth is younger than 6,000 years. It may be older than 6,000 years as well, though. I strongly doubt that it's exactly 6,000 years old, though.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
No.
However, the passage of time as perceived by humans, is subjective, especially considering that the matter in our brains that records the sequence of observed events is part of the system that we think we are measuring. We can build devices outside of our brains to quantify the passage of time, but that device is still part of the system being measured, and that measuring device is still limited in that it must be observed and perceived by a human brain. How "fast" is the second hand on that clock moving? How "fast" does radioactive carbon decay? The only way to know for sure is to take ourselves and our external measuring devices outside the system.
Also, we cannot assume that the "quickness" of sequential events remains constant over time. We can apply today's measure of time to events that occurred in the past, but we must remember that we are using "today" time. Maybe it took a year of today's time for the second hand of a prehistoric clock to complete a single arc. The prehistoric clock observer would have no way of knowing how slow-moving his clock appeared to us.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
What buggeth me about this forum is 3 inescapable facts:
1. We have several regular posters who believe in a "young earth" theory.
2. Hatrackers universally believe that Hatrack is a place where scientific ignorance is minimal.
3. When you question the level of scientific awareness here, you had better prepare to be attacked.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I strongly believe it is. Dinosaurs are just something that paleontologists made-up in order to get a job.
**flame war begins!**
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:1. We have several regular posters who believe in a "young earth" theory.
Who?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: What buggeth me about this forum is 3 inescapable facts:
1. We have several regular posters who believe in a "young earth" theory.
2. Hatrackers universally believe that Hatrack is a place where scientific ignorance is minimal.
You appear to believe these two statements are incompatible. They are not. (Yeah, KOM will disagree, but KOM is a poopyhead.)
I say, probably no, but ask me again after I'm dead. Till then, I won't know for sure.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Ron Lambert, for one. If KoM is right, Farm Girl is another.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
skillery, most scientific timing is actually reversed from your way. A second is the "amount of time" that has elapsed after some amount of (in the hundreds of thousands, I believe) of a certain type of cesium atom, as tested at sea-level on earth. Sure if the mass of the earth or sun changes drastically (or the orbit changes), or the gravitational constant itself changes, then yeah,we will be unable to easily notice this (though I believe it still might be possible).
Ultimately time and space are relative (hello Einstein), hence you get all those paradoxes.
What you are proposing seems to be a form of solipsism... Although perhaps it explains why parents believe they just the leave a child's play room, and it is already a mess.
-Bok
EDIT: My answer is no.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I strongly believe it is. Dinosaurs are just something that paleontologists made-up in order to get a job.
**flame war begins!**
Dinosaurs, or as they were once dubbed by a certain Mr. Colbert, Jesus Horses.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: Ron Lambert, for one. If KoM is right, Farm Girl is another.
And why is this a problem? Let alone YOUR problem?
Hatrack has also always claimed to be tolerant of people's beliefs. And I don't see how you can possibly claim that this belief harms anyone.
Except the holder(s) of said belief, when 2/3 of Hatrack jumps down their throats. Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Rivka, there are certain inescapable facts of geology. Certain rocks cool/harden at a certain rate. There are rock formations on this planet that took several hundred thousand years to cool to their present state. This is first-semester college geology.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: Also, we cannot assume that the "quickness" of sequential events remains constant over time. We can apply today's measure of time to events that occurred in the past, but we must remember that we are using "today" time. Maybe it took a year of today's time for the second hand of a prehistoric clock to complete a single arc. The prehistoric clock observer would have no way of knowing how slow-moving his clock appeared to us.
But what is time except for a standard against which to measure events against? Yes, time can go at different rates, but only if you have a separate frame of reference to compare them against. I suppose that if you chose some particular frame of reference and used it to compare earth now with earth then there might be a difference. However, from the perspective of earth, a second is a second.
Of course, the standard disclaimers apply. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something. There are plenty of people here who are better at physics than me, so I am sure that they will speak up vocally if I am wrong.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't know how old the earth is. I believe in an all-powerful God who created it, and quite frankly it's pretty arrogant of me to assume I can understand and know how or when He did so.
I respect the scientific disciplines, see no problem having my kids learn evolutionary theory in school and yet also believe strongly in a creator God. And I don't feel like there's any conflict there. I just accept that I may never know the intricacies of the creation of the universe until I can ask God about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: Rivka, there are certain inescapable facts of geology. Certain rocks cool/harden at a certain rate. There are rock formations on this planet that took several hundred thousand years to cool to their present state. This is first-semester college geology.
Yup. I know that. Chemistry major here, who taught high school science for 10 years.
That would be among the reasons I think it is probably no.
I will ask you again, why do you care?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*points to rivka's post* What she said.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: a certain type of cesium atom, as tested at sea-level on earth
It's still just matter, like neurons and second hands.
It's all thermodynamics...matter changing state, energy level, or position. If you heat the universe up, it all happens faster.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:I strongly doubt that it's exactly 6,000 years old, though.
Didn't you get the birthday party invite? It is indeed 6000 years old today.
Happy Birthday Earth! Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote:I strongly doubt that it's exactly 6,000 years old, though.
Didn't you get the birthday party invite? It is indeed 6000 years old today.
Happy Birthday Earth!
P.S. Bring your own beer.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:*points to rivka's post* What she said.
This thread does feel link an attempt to out certain hatrackers so they can be ostracized.
I have a deeper respect for rivka. Great answer.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:I will ask you again, why do you care?
maybe he's trying to make up his mind?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: Certain rocks cool/harden at a certain rate. There are rock formations on this planet that took several hundred thousand years to cool to their present state. This is first-semester college geology.
And rocks on the sun are still cooling. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I strongly believe it is. Dinosaurs are just something that paleontologists made-up in order to get a job.
**flame war begins!**
Paleontologists? No, you've got it all wrong. Dinosaurs are actually an invention by Steven Spielberg. All this stuff you see about museums, and books, and so forth are just one big marketing stunt that got way out of hand.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I strongly believe it is. Dinosaurs are just something that paleontologists made-up in order to get a job.
**flame war begins!**
Paleontologists? No, you've got it all wrong. Dinosaurs are actually an invention by Steven Spielberg. All this stuff you see about museums, and books, and so forth are just one big marketing stunt that got way out of hand.
I can't believe I fell right into their hands!! How gullible I was!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: a certain type of cesium atom, as tested at sea-level on earth
It's still just matter, like neurons and second hands.
It's all thermodynamics...matter changing state, energy level, or position. If you heat the universe up, it all happens faster.
Well, no, not in the way you are implying. It may oscillate more times in a second, but that's because you've changed the temperature from the one defined as part of the definition of a second.
-Bok
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i remeber reading someones theory on why scientifically the earth is only 6000 years olkd took 2 seconds on google to find it being totally and irrocically debunked.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
Since you feel that way, may I assume that you will be leaving?
If so, bye. Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Belle....leaving would be a great pleasure. Except someone must study the primitives and their way of life. Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
THAT is your point? You have kind of an odd approach to making THAT point...
And that difference is kind of an important one, by the way. Not that that is the only difference; I'm just sayin.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
That's what you might call Special Relativity. Different people find different things (or places) to be special based on what they personally value. It's not exactly a startling discovery or anything. Definitely not worthy of its own thread. Whatever.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I do not think there is anyone who believes the earth is LESS than 6,000 years old. If you said AROUND 6,000 years, you might get a lot of takers.
True, as Msquared said, I am a young earth creationist; however, I am not a typical young earther. I do NOT hold that the PHYSICAL EARTH is around 6,000 years old. I feel the weight of evidence favors conclusions that life on earth is around 6,000 years (could be as much as 8,000 years--there are demonstrable gaps in the Biblical genealogies where a few generations of long-lived patriarchs are left out), and the physical earth and universe are more in the order of 10,000 to 15,000 years old. I believe a number of the creationist scientists who are part of the Creation Research Society tend toward the same range of ages.
I should also note that the Seventh-day Adventist Church, of which I am a member, generally holds a different position than I do. The majority view in the church as that life on earth is around 6,000 years old, but the physical earth and universe may be in the billions of years. I see no reason to concede this latter to the evolutionist uniformitarians. There are also some members of our church who believe in some form of evolution, but they are usually not generally regarded as members in good standing.
[ November 16, 2006, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
So this thread is just "You think you're so special! You're not that special!" ??
Wake me when recess is over so the grownups can play again.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
What KarlEd, Sharpie, and Belle said. Yeesh.
And Ron, given that 5767 is less than 6000, I'm going to disagree with you.
Kama, tell me you're kidding, please.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
c.t.t.n.
The difference between Hatrack and other boards is simple.
Some here believe fervently in YE Creationism. Admittedly they are a minority.
Others here believe it is not only bad science, but also bad theology.
However, after arguments on both sides are made, both sides still respect and enjoy the company of people on the otherside.
We may attack the arguments of the other, but we don't attack the others.
And if we go to far, make unsupported arguments, we apologize and move on.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I say, probably no, but ask me again after I'm dead. Till then, I won't know for sure.
How will you know for sure after you are dead?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The earth to me is obviously in the millions of years old category, macro-evolution requires it and considering he amount of evidence so far in support of evolution it implies that the earth HAS to be millions of years old.
Also geology will have it no other way, its impossbile for the earths formations to have formed in <15,000 years, also the dinosaurs are another point based on theyre location in the layers of the earths crust the dinosaurs ent extint 65,000,000 years ago, minimum life span of earth, next we have evidence that it goes as way back as over 250,000,000 years.
Also we have continental drift, based on their rate of movement it would have taken 250,000,000 years for the contenents to hae separated the way they did, then they'res the millions of years for the planets in the solar system to have formed, the russians have alot of research on this.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: It may oscillate more times in a second, but that's because you've changed the temperature from the one defined as part of the definition of a second.
-Bok
There are probably other, less-understood factors that could affect the rate of oscillation of a cesium atom. There could be an unmeasurable and therefore unknowable factor that has equal bearing on cesium atom oscillation rates and second hand revolution rates and neuron firing speeds.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In this world, there are no answers. In the Next, there are no questions.
Dan, very well put. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We may attack the arguments of the other, but we don't attack the others.
And if we go to far, make unsupported arguments, we apologize and move on.
I would not say either of these are entirely true for everyone. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, you seem to have a bit of a false dichotomy there. Either nobody believes in creationism, or else we are just as uninformed as every other web board in existence! Well, that's just ridiculous. If the percentage of YEC-ers is significantly lower than the average, then obviously you are justified in saying that Hatrack is better informed than the rest of the Internet. It doesn't have to be zero. In fact, it would be quite unfortunate if it were zero, because then the EACST would get bored with having nothing to do, and they'd have to start investigating trolls and goblins instead.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000. And where to you get that 5767 figure? Archbishop James Ussher calculated that earth was created on 4004 B.C. Adding 2006 and subtracting 1 because there was no year zero, totals 6,009.
As I said earlier, there are problems with the Biblical genealogies Archbishop Ussher went by in calculating his well-publicized date, namely that some generations of long-lived patriarchs were left out. Thus the only possibility is that Ussher underestimated the age of the earth, anywhere from 200-2,000 years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I personally believe the elements and minerals that now compose this earth are millions, maybe billions, perhaps in some instances trillions of years old.
When it comes to ape like beings and human beings I am still undecided as to when MEN really came to be on the earth.
I do THINK (still unsure) that from the epoch of the first real man (complete with written and oral language), we have 6,000 years or so of history until now.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000.
Yep. But it is also less than 6000, neh?
It is the current Jewish year. Calculations related to it are probably available on various websites (some of which are in English ). If you remind me when I'm back in my home state and on my own computer (instead of squeezing in a few minutes here and there on training breaks), I can try to find some -- assuming you're interested.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
quote:Kama, tell me you're kidding, please.
I put a smilie there and all!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
phew!
I wasn't sure at whom the was directed.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
If no animals on this earth died before Eve or Lilith ate the proverbial fruit, then how did fossil animals find their way into the rock strata, buried in layers, with the least advanced animals on the bottom? Wouldn't there be an even distribution of all types of animals through all layers of rock?
If these fossils came from space, how did they arrange themselves into layers according to their level of sophistication, with their respective environments (streams, ponds, seas, tar pits) intact?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lilith? ack. >_<
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, I could go over all the things you regard as incontrovertible evidence and show the fallacies in them, and all the solid evidence that contradicts them. In fact, I have done this for a fair amount of the main arguments here and in the Ornery forum in the past.
But let me just ask you this. If the last of the dinosaurs, T-Rex in particular, died out 65 million years ago, then why is it that T-Rex fossils have been found that still contain soft tissues? See for example this report in MSNBC - Reuters Report on soft tissue found in T-Rex fossils. Despite the desperate hand-waving of evolutionists as they try to rationalize how this could be, do you honestly, really believe it is reasonable to think that soft tissue could be preserved for 65 million years? Wouldn't Occam's Razor lead you to conclude it is more likely that those fossils are not really that old? Then I could bring up the more than half a dozen fossils, some of which were taken as index fossils used to "prove" the ages of various rock strata, which were from creatures that since have been found to have representatives of their species still living?
If you want to open the "can of worms" of evidence that contradicts the evolutionist faith, be forewarned that it is not just a can, it is a 50-gallon drum.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My big problem with Young Earth theory.
YE--The earth is exacty x years old. EVOL--Um, well Science says.... YE--Science can be wrong. It uses the brains of men to determine its outcomes, and men are imperfect, so their math and science are imperfect. We only take the Perfect word of God as given in the Bible. EVOL--The bible doesn't state definatevely how old the world is. How could you figure it out? YE--We used math, so it must be Science.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Two things:
1. One argument I've heard which is one of those impossible to debunk is that God created the earth _____ (say 6000) years ago and made it with the appearance of age. To dissuade someone of this theory, you have to dissuade them of their belief in an omnipotent God. Good luck.
2. c.t.t.n ... I've tried and tried to write a post addressing you, but failed every time to keep it within the ToS. You're a rude bashibazouk (look at the etymology).
(Sorry Pops. I won't be at my computer for another day or so so if you need to edit that, feel free)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that? I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning. Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation. As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations, and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
But I see your point, that a Jewish YE creationist would regard the earth (or at least, earth's biosphere) as being less than 6,000 years old. I hadn't realized that.
All the creationist organizations that I know of are Christian. Are there any Jewish creationist organizations?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets be clear, by soft tissue surviving we mean the bare remnants of some of the strongest kinds of cell walls, surrounded and partially filled up with minerals such that there's nowhere for them to go.
There are trees that have lived over five thousand years. Its extremely common to find tissue remnants in remains hundreds of thousands of years old. That some small amount is still around after another order of magnitude or two is completely within the realm of possibility.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Nice try, fugu13, but I do not buy it at all, not even a little bit. Just step back, and consider soberly how silly a position you are taking, trying to explain away soft tissue found in fossils supposed to be 65 million years old. Why can't you even admit this raises a serious question about all the age dating methods used to claim vast ages for the earth and for organic specimens? You would rather deny and belittle such a glaring, blatant fact, rather than admit that so many scientists and their fond traditions are and always have been dead wrong? I wonder what means God is about to use to humble the human pride that so many exalt so highly. I get the feeling that God is about to lower the boom on those who indulge this hubris. Sooner or later even you, fugu13, are going to be forced to admit that evolution and vast ages for the earth and universe, simply could not be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that?
*twinkle* THE Jewish calendar.
quote: I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning.
At the risk of offending any Karaites who might be present, what they practice is not Judaism.
quote:Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation. As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations, and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
I have no knowledge whatsoever of Usher or his calculations. I do know that Jewish calculations of dates and genealogies differ from Christian, but I really don't know any details.
quote:But I see your point, that a Jewish YE creationist would regard the earth (or at least, earth's biosphere) as being less than 6,000 years old.
Exactly.
quote:All the creationist organizations that I know of are Christian. Are there any Jewish creationist organizations?
To my knowledge, there are not. Keep in mind that the majority of Jewish creationists (and that is not how they would self-identify) have no interest whatsoever in convincing anyone outside of their own communities. So why have a formal organization to do so?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:trying to explain away soft tissue found in fossils supposed to be 65 million years old.
Apparently you did not read what was posted. It was not "Soft tissue can survive X number of years" but rather "What was found was not soft tissue."
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rivka, if science is represented on every hand as being opposed to your faith, don't you think there should be someone who would rise up against this in defense of the faith? Is it OK with you if 90% of the world's scientists call the God you believe in a liar? Have you nothing to say in response? I mean, why don't you care?
The fourth commandment says you are to keep the Sabbath because "...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) God apparently thought this was important enough to write it with His own finger in stone. But if someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue and should be ignored, then what does this do to the basis for your sabbath-keeping?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
From Wikipedia
quote:At one time Karaites were a significant portion of the Jewish population. However today there are left an estimated 2,000 Karaites in the USA, about 100 families in Istanbul, and about 12,000 in Israel, most of them living near the town of Ramleh.
Rivka, I think the odds of one being at hatrack are relatively slim... Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Karaites claim to preserve the original Judaism of the Hebrew Scriptures. Here is a website: http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
No.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Ron, she may believe that they are wrong, but Judaism does not have an evangelical component. It is not her mission or her job to save others (no Jewish peoples) from the errors of their thoughts. God did not command them to keep the Sabbath, just her and her people. What is important to her is that she maintains her faith. Why should she be distracted from maintaining her faith by the lack of faith of others who are not part of the covenant.
Why should you?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
What Dan said. The Jewish people are perfectly happy to practice their own religion and don't feel the need to "save" others from their evil ways.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Actually, Ron, the finding of soft tissue remnants inside fossils is definitely leading to a bit of a shakeup in archaeology. Just not in the dating methods. Instead, it is causing people to question the assumption that soft tissue can't be preserved for millions of years. This assumption is on far shakier ground than dating methods, which often independently verify each other; therefore, it makes more sense to question the impossibility of preservation first. In fact, the discovery will probably result in new research on how such preservation might take place. From the original paper on this discovery:
quote:The fossil record is capable of exceptional preservation, including feathers (46), hair (7), color or color patterns (7, 8), embryonic soft tissues (9), muscle tissue and/or internal organs (1013), and cellular structure (7, 1416). These soft tissues are preserved as carbon films (4, 5, 10) or as permineralized three-dimensional replications (9, 11, 13), but in none of these cases are they described as still-soft, pliable tissues.
quote:The unusual preservation of the originally organic matrix may be due in part to the dense mineralization of dinosaur bone, because a certain portion of the organic matrix within extant bone is intracrystalline and therefore extremely resistant to degradation (20, 21). These factors, combined with as yet undetermined geochemical and environmental factors, presumably also contribute to the preservation of soft-tissue vessels.
Full text of the article is here. I'm not sure if it's open access or if I can get it because of my university access. I'll be happy to send the PDF to anyone who wants to see it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: *points to rivka's post* What she said.
<points to rivka's and kat's posts> Ditto.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Rivka, I think the odds of one being at hatrack are relatively slim...
You'd be surprised. At least two or three have shown up (not recently) on one of the Jewish fora I frequent.
Ron, whether the creation story is literally true or metaphorical or something in between matters very little to my religious practices. And as Dan and Strider noted, Jews are non-evangelical.
The world thinks I'm wrong about all kinds of things. So?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do not think there is anyone who believes the earth is LESS than 6,000 years old. If you said AROUND 6,000 years, you might get a lot of takers.
You'd be wrong. The year is 5767 right now. Questions?
In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Good point.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, 5767 is AROUND 6,000. And where to you get that 5767 figure? Archbishop James Ussher calculated that earth was created on 4004 B.C. Adding 2006 and subtracting 1 because there was no year zero, totals 6,009.
Ussher was wrong. That was easy.
Ron, Ussher based his calculations on a set of books that we (Jews) have preserved for millenia. Our count is different than his. Who do you think is more to be trusted; the actual caretakers of the literature, or some guy named Ussher who came along centuries down the line?
(Hint: It isn't Ussher.)
Biblical chronology gives us the date of 5767. If you want details, I'd be happy to oblige.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lilith? ack. >_<
Isn't a lilith an owl?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: hatrackers fervently believe this place is special.
Actually, this has been the subject of significant debate here in the past.
In any event, though, assuming for the sake of argument that I believe Hatrack is "special," and that it's a place "where scientific ignorance is minimal," your argument is still a non sequitur.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning.
Not substantially. From an Orthodox Jewish standpoint, there's a margin of error of no more than a year or two in the year reckoning; I don't think the Karaite reckoning differs in that regard. There are some minor differences regarding establishing the start of the month and interpolating leap years, but those wouldn't affect the overall count, just exact dates within a given year.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, thanks. You got the figure from the Jewish calender. May I ask which Jewish calendar is that? I believe the Karaite Jews maintain a different calendar reckoning. Archbishop Ussher, as you know, went by the Biblical genealogies to calculate his date for Creation.
Not well, he didn't.
Counting the begats in Genesis 5, the Flood of Noah took place in 1656 AM (Anno Mundi). Continuing on through the begats in Genesis 11, you get Abraham's birth in 1948 AM, which puts Isaac's birth in 2048 AM.
Next, we have God telling Abraham in Genesis 15 that the Exodus will take place 400 years from the birth of Abraham's seed, and a specific note from God saying that Isaac is the seed in question. That puts the Exodus in 2448 AM.
Okay. Next we have I Kings 6:1, which tells us that Solomon's 4th year is the 480th year from the Exodus, or 2928 AM. And the chronology of the kings shows that the Temple was destroyed 410 years after Solomon began building it. For details, see here. That puts the destruction of the First Temple in 3338 AM.
Are you having fun yet?
Jewish historiography says that the Second Temple was destroyed 490 years after the destruction of the First Temple, or 3828 AM. The conventional chronology of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia of Darius and Xerxes et al) increases that period by 166 years.
The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, according to all accounts, in 70 CE. That makes this year 5765 (prior to September 2006) according to us, and 5931 according to the conventional Persian chronology.
Why 5765, rather than 5767? That's not actually a discrepancy. It's two different labels for the same thing. The 5765 date comes from setting Adam's creation, effectively, in 0 AM. So that he was 130 years old in 130 AM. But the system that we currently use calls the year in which Adam was created 2 AM. The year the earth was created was 1 AM (there's no Year 0 according to this labeling), and 6 days later, Adam was created on the first day of the year.
By the way, the Karaites reject most of the Torah, so whatever calendar they use is of little interest.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As I have said, I can see where these genealogies skip a few generations,
If you knew Hebrew, you wouldn't say that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and therefore the date of Creation should be set further back than Ussher did. How is it that any Jewish group can maintain a creation date later than Ussher's calculation?
Because we don't care about Ussher. He means precisely nothing at all to us. We knew the year before Ussher was conceived, and we'll know the year when everyone has forgotten there ever was a man named James Ussher.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps a different take, Ron. We find lots of soft tissue remnants in remains that are tens or hundreds of thousands of years old. We find almost none in remains that are dated to much older than that.
You're suggesting the logical conclusion is that despite the incredible discrepancy in amount of soft tissue found, they're all about the same age (and in fact very young, the age of remains that are practically filled with soft tissue, despite these having much, much less).
The logical conclusion is that one set is far older than the other. We have several independent measures of age that all agree fairly precisely as to the ages being very different. This is in agreement with the general difference in soft tissue found. Only the absolute amount is mildly surprising. Coincidentally, a find of soft tissue could provide another dating test.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rivka, if science is represented on every hand as being opposed to your faith, don't you think there should be someone who would rise up against this in defense of the faith? Is it OK with you if 90% of the world's scientists call the God you believe in a liar? Have you nothing to say in response? I mean, why don't you care?
I can't speak for Rivka, but I don't particularly care, and it's because if someone calls me a poo-poo head, it doesn't actually make me a poo-poo head. Maybe this is why we don't proselytize and you do. The truth is the truth whether it is defended or not.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fourth commandment says you are to keep the Sabbath because "...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." (Exodus 20:11) God apparently thought this was important enough to write it with His own finger in stone. But if someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue and should be ignored, then what does this do to the basis for your sabbath-keeping?
Nothing. If someone says the creation account in the Bible is untrue, it doesn't change reality.
Abraham Lincoln was once being annoyed by a journalist. He asked the man: "Sir, how many legs has a dog?" The man replied, "Why, four." Lincoln continued, "And if we call the tail a leg?" "Then... five, I suppose," the man answered. "No," Lincoln told him. "Calling a tail a leg does not make it so."
I have X amount of time on this earth. How much of it do I want to spend trying to convince people who won't be convinced?
I know people who have no problem whatsoever conceiving of Adam having been created as an adult. With all the hallmarks of having gone through infancy, adolescence and maturity, even though he never actually went through those stages. Yet the same people balk at the earth having been created "in progress". There's no logic to it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Karaites claim to preserve the original Judaism of the Hebrew Scriptures. Here is a website: http://www.karaite-korner.org/main.shtml
Back around 13 centuries ago, or so, there were two men who each wanted to be appointed to the office of Resh Galuta (Exilarch). This was effectively the ruler of all the Jews in Mesopotamia.
One of the men was a guy named Anan ben David. He thought he deserved the position. But the heads of the Torah academies backed a different man for the position, and Anan was passed over.
He was furious. And he reacted by starting a movement of people who rejected the bulk of the Torah, claiming that only the written part had been given by God. These were the Karaites.
They are nothing but a schismatic sect that was created for political purposes.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: By the way, the Karaites reject most of the Torah, so whatever calendar they use is of little interest.
That particular statement depends on how you define the word "Torah."
That said, I think everybody on all sides would agree that Karaite Judaism and Rabbinical Judaism branched off from one another a long, long time before the more recent Orthodox / Reform / Conservative split. The two have mutually incompatible fundamental premises.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Perhaps you determine the earth's age based on the precise moment that God started calling it "Earth."
Before that it was called: "My Master's Thesis on Terraforming, Using Self-Replicating Organisms" and it was none of our business how long that project took.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: my point being.....hatrackers fervently believe this place is special. However, I've seen no evidence to suggest that it's anything other than one more message board. The only "difference" seems to be that many of its members think it's something great. Whatever.
We have no need to consider the scientific acumen of the posters on this board. If the actions and beliefs of an individual or two actually can render this place unspecial, your posts in this thread have done so.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Not necessarily. Assume for a moment that Adam was created as an adult, and every test you could run would indicate that he was about 30 years old. Now, he was created 5 minutes ago. Is his age 5 minutes, or 30 years?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
It's the Omphalos variant again, that people have referred to a couple of times already. You can have an Earth created 6000 years ago with all the evidence of age in place - radioactivity, distant stars with light already on the way, and whatnot. Since 'evidence of age' really is age, for all practical purposes, such an Earth would be X billion years old, and nonetheless created 6000 years ago. Of course, the same argument applies to last Tuesday. Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie. Though I seem to recall Dag saying that it's not a lie when the creator also gives you a document saying that you should ignore all the other evidence; I don't remember if he seriously held such a position or was just arguing for its own sake.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Of course, the same argument applies to last Tuesday.
Absolutely. And to five minutes ago.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You have summed it up incompletely, KoM. I don't consider it a lie regardless of the presence of a document. Creating a system at a place other than what its "natural" starting point would be is not dishonest.
That said, I do not hold the position that this is what happened, although I don't necessarily think it false, either. As you said, this argument could apply to last Tuesday.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Of course, the same argument applies to last Tuesday.
Absolutely. And to five minutes ago.
And they're not mutually exclusive, either. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Perhaps you determine the earth's age based on the precise moment that God started calling it "Earth."
How old was Adam when God created him? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that God created him as an 18 year old. Meaning that physiologically, he had an 18 year old body. But that doesn't mean that he'd been around for 18 years. Or do you think that God created a squalling newborn and raised him?
Posted by Verloren (Member # 9771) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: In any case, "The earth is younger than 6,000 years" and "the earth came into being less than 6,000 years ago" are not the same statement.
Huh? You don't determine the earth's age (or youngness), based on the precise moment that it "came into being"?
Why not? Do you count your age as when you were first conceived by your parents, or approximately 9 months later when you were done with your embryonic state?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie.
(a) We're not Christians. (b) That's not a lie. (c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
Excuse me?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*finds bunker*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Most Christians, as far as I know, reject this interpretation on the grounds that their god would not lie.
(a) We're not Christians. (b) That's not a lie. (c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
I realise a), and did not intend my post to apply to you. That is, in fact, why I specified "most Christians." Had I intended to include Jews, I would have said "Christians and Jews".
On b), I think we would be getting into word games on "What is truth?", and I won't go there. As far as I'm concerned, the actual moment of creation (in an Omphalos hypothesis) is utterly irrelevant; what matters is the actual age.
And as for c), I think I'm inclined to agree with Dag. Huh?
quote:Creating a system at a place other than what its "natural" starting point would be is not dishonest.
Not in itself, no. But I think it becomes dishonest when taken together with a claim of having created the system at the natural starting point. (If you like, this is the opposite of the interpretation I mistakenly attributed to you in my last post; it's only dishonest in the presence of documentation to the contrary.) You may certainly argue that Genesis doesn't claim any such thing; I think most fundamentalist Christians would disagree, though.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ...God created him as an 18 year old. Meaning that physiologically, he had an 18 year old body. But that doesn't mean that he'd been around for 18 years.
A roll of toilet paper, fresh from the factory may only be 2 minutes old, but the individual sheets on the roll must be older than that. As we do with a human infant, we start counting the product's age from the time it becomes the final product, and it assumes its intended form and takes the name by which it will be called.
Parts of me are eons old, but I've only been me (in my current form) for 46 years.
If God wanted to start counting at the moment that he started calling this ball of extremely old dirt "Earth" that's fine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery: As we do with a human infant, we start counting the product's age from the time it becomes the final product
The moment of death?
No, wait. Then decomposition begins.
Birth is actually quite a unilateral age marker.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hatrack Presents:
Inherit the Wind! Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
Undeniable proof that dinosaurs were very modern creatures.
Further proof, in a photograph I took about an hour from my house.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
*Grabs a cold beer*
*Sits down to watch the show*
Yeah, that's right. I'm not going to play in this pissing match.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
*pisses on Stan*
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by foundling: *pisses on Stan*
I would too, but I'm a little anatomically challanged. Besides, I have to keep my image.
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 9825) on :
It is amazing that this debate continues in the 21st century. Amazing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And as for c), I think I'm inclined to agree with Dag. Huh?
God labeled the commandments in the Torah as "eternal statutes". To the Christians, he changed his mind. What else would you call that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, Lisa, there are two possibilities:
1.) Christians think God lied. 2.) Christians don't think the Old and New Testament passages contradict each other.
Now, just for a minute, try to think from someone else's perspective. I know you have almost zero experience in doing this, but I promise, it doesn't hurt.
So, thinking from the perspective of a Christian, not an Orthodox Jew, try to decide which one of those two possibilities Christians believe.
Now, I know you'll be tempted to launch into some extended analysis as to why the Torah passage can have only one meaning. Try to resist that, because your statement wasn't about the nature of the Torah. Your statement ("Christians don't think their god would lie") was about what Christians think, not about how Christian Scripture contradicts your interpretation of scripture.
[ November 17, 2006, 08:14 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think one major difference between Hatrack and most other open fora isn't that Hatrack has a higher percentage of right-thinkers versus wrong-thinkers, but that Hatrack has a higher percentage of Thinkers.
The current YE/OE debate is a good example. On thousands of other fora this is a "debate" of half-understood arguements thrown from one side at the other and back. Now, I won't claim that Hatrack doesn't have its own share of low-brow rabble-rousers, but they are by far a minority. You have to admit that although both sides of most contentious issues are represented here, at least the representatives are people who have deeply thought out opinions and can usually articulate the reasons they believe what they do. That is a bit of a rarity in other fora, in my experience, I'm sad to say.
And for the most part we can disagree passionately on one thread and still be friendly in other threads.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ya also, Ron it takes relatively speaking X many thousands, tens of thousans, millions, tens of millions, hunreds of millions BILLIONS of years for light from the very closest star systems (Eriandus Eridani?) to the obsdervable farthest star in a galaxy far far away to reach us.
The Speed of Light (c) is a constant is possibly under certain theories of Quantum Physics (Cassimir Vacuum) for the speed of light to maybe be changed in a system of 2 metal plates to change its calculations but at the current time we not not possess the tools to verify this.
So essentially, if your a sane rational person the speed of light is overwhelming evidence in favor of an OLD Earth Hypothesis and undenyable support for evolution.
This do not get me wrong does not disprove the concept of an onipotant diety creating the Universe, just means it could only have been done through scientific proceesses and if you wanna still make a leap of faith possibly created by this diety, however if you accept that you'll have to accept the now very real possibility of evolution taking place for a seemingly perfect being cannot break its own laws and as such.
Would not break our percieved rules of the universe.
And thus Evolution is now alot more acceptable now neh?
Next, I remember a book by a Jewish Scholar who wrote how Evolution and the Big Bang theory go perfectly in tune with Genesis, my friend Tyler is reading it, apparantly this scientist sent his son to Jewish school/synagoge and such and the kid came back very very religious so the father writes this book to show his son how evolution+big bang goes together fine with the Torah.
*pwned*
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
No Blayne. Not pwned. (God how I hate that statement.)
A young eather can belive that God created the light already in transit. Remember God is all powerful, so he can start things however he wants them.
msquared
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Blayne, have you read any of the rest of the discussion? If someone believes that God could have created Adam as 30 years old, in such a way that all medical tests would show him as 30 years old, don't you figure they would believe that the same God could have created light that moves at what we know as the speed of light, already on its way here? You're not pwning anyone, you're just showing that you're not paying attention to what other people are saying.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Do you reckon Adam had a belly button?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Only if God has mammary glands.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Next, I remember a book by a Jewish Scholar who wrote how Evolution and the Big Bang theory go perfectly in tune with Genesis, my friend Tyler is reading it, apparantly this scientist sent his son to Jewish school/synagoge and such and the kid came back very very religious so the father writes this book to show his son how evolution+big bang goes together fine with the Torah.
The book in question—somewhat mischaractized, as "very very religious" wasn't the issue—is Genesis and the Big Bang, by Gerald Schroeder. I've heard him speak in person. I am a fan of the book, and I agree with a lot of it.
That said, [a] there's a multiplicity of opinions among Jewish authorities on the subject, with Schroeder's take being only one; [b] he's not a "Jewish scholar" in the sense you imply— his credentials are as a nuclear physicist, not as a religious scholar; [c] the existence of this book and the argument it makes in no way supports anything else in your post.
(For a wider spectrum of perspectives—albeit a bit dated, having been published in 1976—see Challenge: Torah Views on Science and its Problems, by the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists.)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think one major difference between Hatrack and most other open fora isn't that Hatrack has a higher percentage of right-thinkers versus wrong-thinkers, but that Hatrack has a higher percentage of Thinkers.
The current YE/OE debate is a good example. On thousands of other fora this is a "debate" of half-understood arguements thrown from one side at the other and back. Now, I won't claim that Hatrack doesn't have its own share of low-brow rabble-rousers, but they are by far a minority. You have to admit that although both sides of most contentious issues are represented here, at least the representatives are people who have deeply thought out opinions and can usually articulate the reasons they believe what they do. That is a bit of a rarity in other fora, in my experience, I'm sad to say.
And for the most part we can disagree passionately on one thread and still be friendly in other threads.
I don't know about a lot of that, actually.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: OK, Lisa, there are two possibilities:
1.) Christians think God lied. 2.) Christians don't think the Old and New Testament passages contradict each other.
Dagonee, I would say there is another possibility (though you may consider it a subset of #2). From a Christian perspective, the possibility exists that, where there are seeming inconsistancies, it is because Scripture is recorded by human beings who, though inspired, are still part of specific cultures and contexts.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would consider that a subset of 2 - in fact, one reason why some Christians believe 2 to be true - but it's good to get more detail out there.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Do you reckon Adam had a belly button?
I think you just reworded the chicken or the egg debate.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
egg obviosuly, egg is a symbol for singled cell orgasms.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: egg obviosuly, egg is a symbol for singled cell orgasms.
Ah, but I'm not talking about the egg as a metaphor.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Actualy to a religious person the chicken/egg question is answered in Genisis. The chicken came first.
msquared
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared: Actualy to a religious person the chicken/egg question is answered in Genisis. The chicken came first.
msquared
Were chickens around 6,000 years ago, or did man selectively breed them from another species?
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I said a religious person.
Genisis says that God created all the birds in the sky and the animals on the ground, or something like that.
msquared
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Many religious people find many ways to interpret those passages, quite a few of which would not preclude an egg being around before a chicken. Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Truly, this thread has taken a fowl turn.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and can't forget the religious people who aren't in one of the religions that thinks those passages matter Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
::agrees with both of fugu's points::
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan_raven, just because someone has faith does not mean something good, necessarily. What they have faith IN is what really matters.
fugu13, you said: "We have several independent measures of age that all agree fairly precisely as to the ages being very different." Actually, those different age dating methods vary wildly, yielding very contradictory results, and all suffer from the same fault: they depend upon the prior assumptions of uniformitarian philosophy in order for their results to be interpreted as indicating vast ages. Creationists have been decrying this circular reasoning for a long time. I have pointed out before here the recent investigations creationist scientists such as Dr. Russell Humphries have done into the amount of radiogenic helium still trapped in crustal granite, that has not yet diffused out. They have found that the amount present is not in harmony with the assumption that radioactive decay has been going on in granite at the same rate as today for billions of years. In fact, the amounts they have found are actually consistent with a geologic age of the granite on the order of 6,000 to 8,000 years. Here again is a link: CRSQ report on research into helium diffusion rate Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
He compared diffusion rates in a vacuum to diffusion rates under huge pressures, to point out one of the most obviously fallacious parts of his 'research' (credit to the above page).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And he seems to be a 'unformitarian', too. Take a look at his 'research' talking about how fast sediment and salt accumulate in the sea, which assume incredibly regular rates of accumulation in order to produce his bogus dates.
quote:(c) Christians don't think their god would lie? News to me.
I would say that Christians don't think God would lie directly, in his own Words. However, there is very strong evidence that God would allow us to believe false things. This happens countless times in the Bible - where groups of people believe mistaken things and God does not step in to force them to believe the truth. Often he merely sends a messenger, who may or may not be believed. For instance, he sends Moses to tell Pharoah that pretty unbelievable plagues will come. God, Himself, could have thundered in and told Pharoah himself, but He did not.
Note that this is comparable to a creationist situation. God has potentially sent messengers, via the church, to say that the Earth is young. Even if that message seems unbelievable or unlikely to us (as the plagues did to Pharoah), I think it would be consistent with God's supposed behavior to allow us to hold mistaken beliefs if we so choose to. Presumably, this means that sometimes it is better that we have mistaken beliefs than be forced by God to believe the truth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually, those different age dating methods vary wildly, yielding very contradictory results
Wrong. Would you care to try again?
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Karl, does Ron Lambert fit your definition of a Thinker?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
c.t.t.n., he's certainly shown more thinking than you have in this thread.
Unless you consider metaphorically hanging out with the kids smoking behind the library and making fun of people based on what books they check out to be "thinking."
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
He certainly puts more thought into his posts than you do.
[edit: JINX!]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
About the speed of light, thing... When God created the Earth, who's to say that the universe wasn't already created? There's no reason that the stars wouldn't already be visible because they really were created millions or hundreds of thousands of years before. Therefore, the light would already be there.
If I walk into a room where the light already is, I don't have to wait for the light to travel to my eyes to see it. It's already there. (I know that wouldn't be perceptible anyway... but get my meaning?)
And I agree mostly with Ron regarding the original issue. Just thought I'd stand up and be counted.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: About the speed of light, thing... When God created the Earth, who's to say that the universe wasn't already created? There's no reason that the stars wouldn't already be visible because they really were created millions or hundreds of thousands of years before. Therefore, the light would already be there.
If I walk into a room where the light already is, I don't have to wait for the light to travel to my eyes to see it. It's already there. (I know that wouldn't be perceptible anyway... but get my meaning?)
And I agree mostly with Ron regarding the original issue. Just thought I'd stand up and be counted.
The problem there is that Genesis mentions a pretty much empty void. Part of Genesis was, "Let there be light."
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
It says the Earth was without form and void. I don't remember a mention of the Universe.
And besides, there's war in heaven before the creation of the Earth--where exactly was that if the universe didn't exist???
No... the Earth was not the first thing created. How arrogant are we?? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: It says the Earth was without form and void. I don't remember a mention of the Universe.
And besides, there's war in heaven before the creation of the Earth--where exactly was that if the universe didn't exist???
No... the Earth was not the first thing created. How arrogant are we??
I think the war is just a Christian belief.
But didn't God create the lights in the sky on the 4th day? That would be all the stars in my opinion.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote: And besides, there's war in heaven before the creation of the Earth--where exactly was that if the universe didn't exist???
Where is heaven *now*? Somewhere in the physical universe? On the tenth moon of Schnizricon 6?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
Your search - Schnizricon - did not match any documents.
Suggestions:
* Make sure all words are spelled correctly. * Try different keywords. * Try more general keywords.
Maybe we're not supposed to know.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Day 1 let there be light.... Day 4 sun, moon and stars.... after Day 3 dry land and plants. That particular bit is why I'm no longer a young earth creationist. I can't figure out how to take that literally, or accept the paradox.
I can accept the paradox of Free Will and Predestination, but I just can't get around this one in any sort of literal fashion. And I never saw CRI adress it satisfactorily when I went to their museum or was reading their literature.
AJ
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
As for the "eternal statutes," I have read it explained (explained away if you want to be critical) very differently. It is an Eternal Statute because it was given by an Eternal Deity. Therefore, it is a statement of WHO gave it rather than Longevity of the Law itself.
I have also read it explained that the Laws are not eternal, but the precepts they represent are eternal. Thus, loving others, keeping the body healthy, obedience to Deity, etc. are the underlying eternal elements of proscriptions.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Well, I think heaven is in the physical universe... just kinda hidden.
It does say he made the stars... I don't know that it means he made them that specific day. According to the KJV, it can mean he didn't make them that day. But I don't read Hebrew, so it's not like I can look at the original.
Is the war in heaven a Christian belief? *shrugs* I'm a Christian, so I guess it works for me. I was pretty sure there was plenty of stuff in the OT about it, especially in Isaiah.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
I guess I'm alone in my desire to be right, above all else. But what else matters, besides being right? I'm serious.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
What the heck are you talking about?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I think he's using a Random Non-Sequitur Generator to write his posts for him.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As for the "eternal statutes," I have read it explained (explained away if you want to be critical) very differently. It is an Eternal Statute because it was given by an Eternal Deity. Therefore, it is a statement of WHO gave it rather than Longevity of the Law itself.
I have also read it explained that the Laws are not eternal, but the precepts they represent are eternal. Thus, loving others, keeping the body healthy, obedience to Deity, etc. are the underlying eternal elements of proscriptions.
Doesn't really work with the original text. "Chukat olam l'doroteichem" means "it is a forever statute for your generations". The translation of "olam" as "eternal" is because "forever" sounds weird in that context. It's clear in the original that it's the law itself that is forever, and not the Giver.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: It does say he made the stars... I don't know that it means he made them that specific day. According to the KJV, it can mean he didn't make them that day. But I don't read Hebrew, so it's not like I can look at the original.
It does say He created them that day.
Then again, we've always believed that the light created on the first day was not generated by stars, and was not something we're familiar with today.
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Is the war in heaven a Christian belief? *shrugs* I'm a Christian, so I guess it works for me. I was pretty sure there was plenty of stuff in the OT about it, especially in Isaiah.
Hmm... not that I've ever seen. And I've been through Isaiah fairly comprehensively.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: I guess I'm alone in my desire to be right, above all else. But what else matters, besides being right? I'm serious.
So I'll take the question seriously. In my opinion, doing right can be more important than being right. Also... I don't know if you're married, but if you are, you probably won't be for long if you feel that way about being right.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why is it impossible for God to have created heavens/earth and yet that not mean the entire universe? Why are heavens and universe synonyms? Is that said anywhere?
Would it be impossible for God to create stars as far as people on earth could see? Couldn't heavens simply mean the environs surrounding the earth? Or the atmosphere?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:But what else matters, besides being right? I'm serious.
Not dying unloved and naked, shivering in a pile of my own excrement comes to mind.
I'm also serious.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: I guess I'm alone in my desire to be right, above all else. But what else matters, besides being right? I'm serious.
So I'll take the question seriously. In my opinion, doing right can be more important than being right. Also... I don't know if you're married, but if you are, you probably won't be for long if you feel that way about being right.
lol
Truer words were never spoken.
Apologies for the double post.
I just agreed to let my wife spend $50 on some new clothes and I know it's better if we save the money, as we need to budget pretty tightly. But with some unfortunate events occurring recently and her getting a new job I felt I could break down for $50 so she could have some new clothes when she starts.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
marriage is great. Just ask John Bobbitt.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, your interpretation of the original text doesn't work for me, so guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:Dan_raven, just because someone has faith does not mean something good, necessarily. What they have faith IN is what really matters.
Ron, my comment was an explanation of Judaic belief that it is more important to keep one self according to the scriptures than it is to police the rest of the world.
I agree that having faith is not always a good thing, if what you have faith in is bad. However, I have only my own heart and mind to direct me to which faith is "right".
What I've found is far too often over zealous Christians (and Muslims, and New Age Wiccans etc) are so determined to help me pick what they believe is "right" that they loose track of doing what is right.
This doesn't even count the Christofascists (if we can have Islamifascists, we should acknowledge the Christofascists out there.) who are more concerned that everyone else obeys Biblical Morals and Biblical Science that they forget to obey them as well. "Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness" makes no exception for evangelism.
quote:what else matters, besides being right?
5) Learning what is right. 4) Love and being loved. 3) Teaching what is right. 2) Understanding what is right. 1) Doing right.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by msquared [in reference to the chicken and egg debate]: Genisis says that God created all the birds in the sky and the animals on the ground, or something like that.
But a chicken is a bird on the ground.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
The chicken was once a bird in the air, but he was the snake's minion in the Garden. Satan could never have succeeded in tempting Eve if the chicken hadn't been in the background saying "Yeah, yeah, you tell her Snake."
It didn't really get mentioned, but when the snake lost his legs, the chicken got his wings clipped.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: As for the "eternal statutes," I have read it explained (explained away if you want to be critical) very differently. It is an Eternal Statute because it was given by an Eternal Deity. Therefore, it is a statement of WHO gave it rather than Longevity of the Law itself.
I have also read it explained that the Laws are not eternal, but the precepts they represent are eternal. Thus, loving others, keeping the body healthy, obedience to Deity, etc. are the underlying eternal elements of proscriptions.
Doesn't really work with the original text. "Chukat olam l'doroteichem" means "it is a forever statute for your generations". The translation of "olam" as "eternal" is because "forever" sounds weird in that context. It's clear in the original that it's the law itself that is forever, and not the Giver.
Which still provides you zero support for your contention that Christians think that God lies.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
We've had this discussion about the age of the earth at least once before. In this thread the point came up that Moses is responsible for recording the Genesis account of the creation of the earth, that Moses probably saw the whole process in a vision, that the vision was probably not presented in real time (at least not without lots of popcorn and potty breaks), and that Moses probably assigned the time base for the events that he observed in the vision.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
I'm not saying hatrack is worse than the average BB.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*waves* Hi zgator! Long time No see!
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
then what are you saying cttn? Doesn't seem like you've contributed anything terribly constructive here.... Why did you start this thread at all?
AJ
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
My point is, hatrack consensus means exactly squat, from my point of view. The average hatracker is about 24, and of above average intelligence. I'm only in my early 30's, and I already know I've got another several decades of basic learning to even begin to feel basically competent. Hatrack...knows....almost....nothing, in the aggregate.
In my personal experience, in the subject areas I know the most about, Hatrack looks the dumbest to me.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by c.t.t.n.: I'm not saying hatrack is worse than the average BB.
Such praise for a forum! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My point is, hatrack consensus means exactly squat, from my point of view.
Were you under the impression that anyone thinks "hatrack consensus" means anything?
I'm still wondering what the point of this thread is. Is it to just pull Hatrack down a peg or two? Was there some movement to make Hatrack consensus the basis for foreign policy, and you're trying to save the country from that?
What, exactly, is the point of saying "You all are dumber than you think you are (in the aggregate - nothing personal)"?
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Banna, why are you calling me zGator?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wasn't calling you zgator. A cursory review of this thread page should make it obvious.
AJ
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
The love of hatrack is nothing to prize. That's my point. I used to feel differently.
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Point taken, Banna. Got any others?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hatrack has a consensus?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do you go to stamp collector meetings and shout "They're only pieces of paper! You shouldn't like them!"
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:This is first-semester college geology.
So what you missed first-semester civility? A poll is not an attempt at discussion. It is an attempt to draw out people you disagree with.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: The love of hatrack is nothing to prize. That's my point. I used to feel differently
I don't think this is a reflection of "hatrack" as a forum but a reflection on your own personal state at the moment, obviously you still care or you wouldn't have started this thread at all.
So let's talk about it. What made you change your mind? Why did you feel that it meant something?
AJ
Posted by c.t.t.n. (Member # 9509) on :
Banna, I was too young and ignorant to know it was meaningless. And of course I care. up until...right now.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The average hatracker is 24? Since when?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am still trying to figure out why this thread is such a low mark? We've had pro and con discuss rationally their reasons for believing. We've had a few attempts at wit and humor, and we've had CTTN say, "See, you aren't so smart after all."
I am unsure what CTTN would consider smarter? The total flaming of the idea of YE or the total unyeilding support of it? Would a simple Y/N vote by everyone have proven our eliteness?
CTTN could you explain where we failed?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I actually went and checked the age/religion demographic thread, but it the results were just tabulated by religion and over/under 30, as the thread's intent was to find out if the forum was primarily composed of "young Mormons." Anyway, 30% of the respondents were over 30 and 70% under. But since the youngest responding was 15, most were in their 20s, and there were quite a few in their 40s and 50s, I would "eyeball" the average as high 20s. Of those responding, of course.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Being loved is not meaningless. However being loved by an intangible conglomerate entity of diverse human beings such as hatrack probably isn't realistic.
Why would you look for such a place in order to be loved in the first place? Hatrack is a wonderful support network but it is individuals that establish relationships with each other and give and receive love that create meaning in life. While a forum can sometimes provide the means of communication between those individuals it isn't a sentient being that can love on its own as a living organism.
So we've established that you feel unloved. What else?
AJ
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: The average hatracker is 24? Since when?
I'm 24 it must be true.
c.t.t.n: What exactly do you plan to accomplish by this whole Hatrack isn't anything special schtick?
Do you plan to walk out of it gracefully? I guess I don't understand where this is all coming from, or where you are going with it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
cttn is feeling unloved by hatrack, and now that they are older and wiser, they think that being loved by a forum is probably meaningless, but they still care so that they need to demonstrate to everyone else in a personal manner that it is meaningless because if everyone agrees that it is meaningless then they think they will feel better, and they are getting attention in the mean time which also makes them feel better, even though it is negative attention rather than being loved. At least it is being noticed rather than overlooked.
(how's my synopsis cttn?)
AJ (sorry didnt' realize it was cttn not cttm)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: The average hatracker is 24? Since when?
I'm 24 it must be true.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
fugu13, when you enter into the debate between creationists and evolutionists, you have to follow the arguments back and forth all the way, as far as they go, to their conclusion. Don't assume that just because evolutionists have come up with a "response" they have really answered the creationists' arguments and successfully dismissed their evidence. That's what they hope you will do. Follow the arguments back and forth to see what creationists say in response to the attempts to refute them.
That website you gave a link to is obviously propagandistic. You can see that just from the black and white "picture" of Dr. Humphries they selected, that makes him look like a crazy fanatic. (That is not the way he really looks.) Looking through the text, I do not see well-reasoned arguments, only gratuitous insults and cheap shots. That is not a responsible website.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:Banna, why are you calling me zGator?
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
And Hi back atcha AJ. I've been devolving into a lurker.
quote: In my personal experience, in the subject areas I know the most about, Hatrack looks the dumbest to me.
Can you tell us which areas you know most about so we'll know in what areas we are dumb?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:However being loved by an intangible conglomerate entity of diverse human beings such as hatrack probably isn't realistic
And yet it remains my darkest fantasy.
If only I could get the physics to work.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Squicky Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ooohhh yeah...there's the intangible conglomerate love.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's the nicest thing I've been called on Hatrack lately. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What I want to experience is the Intangible Cormorant of Love.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Can't help you there, dude. Sorry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Don't assume that just because evolutionists have come up with a "response" they have really answered the creationists' arguments and successfully dismissed their evidence.
Ron, the irony of this escapes you.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I once came close came close to having Intangible Conglomerate Love.
If by Intanigible you mean metaphoric
and if by Conglomerate you mean a corporation, like, say, Microsoft
and if by love you mean sexual relations of an upleasant kind.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Dan makes me smile. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I laughed aloud at that. Dan definitely knows how to channel The Funny.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I was thinking of all of us holding virtual internet hands, around a metaphysical campfire and singing Kumbayah to our computer screens.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
They linked to a step by step dismembering of his arguments regarding the helium, among other things that is extremely detailed and technical. Any one of his missteps is enough to invalidate his entire argument, and he made numerous ones (including significant mathematical errors).
Of course they don't like him, he's a crank peddling bad science. I looked at his response to their dismantling, and it completely ignores most of their arguments and fails to repudiate the part it does look at.
In other words, looking at the back and forth has only made it more clear to me how much of a crank he is.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Fugu we are sitting at a metaphysical campfire singing kumbayah... don't interupt with actual physics! AJ
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator: The chicken was once a bird in the air, but he was the snake's minion in the Garden. Satan could never have succeeded in tempting Eve if the chicken hadn't been in the background saying "Yeah, yeah, you tell her Snake."
It didn't really get mentioned, but when the snake lost his legs, the chicken got his wings clipped.
*laughing
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Your sitting at a campfire singing Kumbayah.
I'm reminicsing about being molested by Microsoft.
Come to think of it, I don't want to hear about physics anyway.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you know, i remember being a child, probably around the age of 10-12 i guess and reading the Torah(OT) and without even questioning it just assuming that the 7 days of creation weren't actual days, but metaphorical days. 7 periods of time in which God created created the universe. In my mind that helped gel with the fact that I thought it was obvious the world was older than 57XX years as well as how the dinosaurs could have existed and become extinct(i just assumed they had been created during one of the metaphorical days, and had gone extinct in one of the other days, way before our actual calendar started).
I'm not saying this to attack creationists. I just never understood how people could believe the universe/world was really only 6000 years old and why every word in the bible had to be taken so literally. I mean, if we literally followed every word in the bible, it would be a pretty messed up place. Case in point, the middle east.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Strider, me too. I remember it quite clearly. I was about ten as well. I also remember thinking about how cro-magnon, neandethal, etc. were the shape humans took as God was forming them. Us. And that we are still being formed.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
huh, that's interesting. I don't exactly remember what i thought of evolution at that point, but I know I never thought that science and religion were mutually exclusive. Again, I just assumed that God would bring things about in a logical/orderly manner.
Then again, i had all sorts of crazy thoughts when i was younger. I was a jew who believed that Santa Claus existed. I believed that EVERY religion was true. And that for people in each religion those things existed for them. I guess sort of ancient greek/roman way of looking at things.
Even though I'm an athiest now, I still don't see why the idea of evolution would discount the idea of a deity. It just comes down to a question of first cause, which as of now, no one can answer.
edit - my "then again, i had all sorts of crazy thoughts when i was younger" was sort of a non-sequitur and was not meant to follow "I just assumed that God would bring things about in a logical/orderly manner." in the way it did. That was by accident. Or possibly, God's will...
[ November 17, 2006, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Considering that Genesis makes it clear that the sky is a physical dome with water above it, and that underneath the earth is a vast ocean of water, oh, and it's not a round ball but actually flat... does anyone actually argue that bit? That all the evidence of leaving the world is either some lie, God is sending false data for some perverse reason (which WOULD probably make Him a liar) or that there's some vast conspiracy?
Also: Pi isn't 3. In the Tanak it's called 3, even though it's not. (again, God screwing with us?)
Are these not true? If you are to claim they are, how do you rationalize the fact that the world simply doesn't work the way it's said in the Bible? By denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of "Truth"?
If you do concede these things aren't accurate, how can you claim that everything else is absolutely true, including the yet more improbable bits?
Where the heck were the dinosaurs, and why were they never mentioned?
Can you really say Pi is three, even though all physical evidence discredits this?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
God rounds. Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I once came close came close to having Intangible Conglomerate Love.
If by Intanigible you mean metaphoric
and if by Conglomerate you mean a corporation, like, say, Microsoft
and if by love you mean sexual relations of an upleasant kind.
Ah, Dan, I was really scared coming back into this thread, thinking I'd find something depressing and upsetting (considering my last post consisted of Turkish mercenaries), but yet again you have me laughing. You da man.
And at least you haven't been attacked by OpenOffice. I was freely distrubuted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The earth is around 6000 years old and that lovable trickster God likes to plant ample evidence that it is not, so that He might condemn those who actually trust the empirical sensibility He gave them.
Whatta scamp!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Maybe God simultaneously made an old earth and a young earth and we each inhabit the earth that we most believe in. Hey, why not? God's omnipotent. If God can violate every law of physics and time, why not just make two seemingly identical earths and superimpose them.
I'm happily typing on a keyboard in my billions-years-old Earth. You (whoever you are) may be happily typing away on a keyboard in your approximately 6,000 year old Earth.
It's all good.
There's not one shred of proof that this hypothesis is less viable than the Young Earth "hypothesis." The hypothesis is completely in line with Scripture (heck, pick a scripture, we'll accommodate it with yet another version of Earth, no worries! And it has the advantage of being at least partially provable -- I can point to things that show that at some version of Earth is billions of years old.
<ding>
problem solved.
Everyone go home now.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
damn. Bob wins. Can we go out for ice cream now?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh. So someone like Rivka, who isn't sure . . . what, she fades in and out of each Earth like Captain Kirk? Or does she have twice as much Earth as you and I do? 'Cause that's not fair at all. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka gets a special keyboard.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's not like the special hell, is it? I like rivka. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I also remember thinking about how cro-magnon, neandethal, etc. were the shape humans took as God was forming them. Us. And that we are still being formed.
Joseph Smith said this about his brother Alvin: "...a very handsome man, surpassed by none but Adam and Seth"
I don't know if anybody has dug up a handsome Neanderthal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Maybe God simultaneously made an old earth and a young earth and we each inhabit the earth that we most believe in. Hey, why not? God's omnipotent. If God can violate every law of physics and time, why not just make two seemingly identical earths and superimpose them.
I'm happily typing on a keyboard in my billions-years-old Earth. You (whoever you are) may be happily typing away on a keyboard in your approximately 6,000 year old Earth.
It's all good.
There's not one shred of proof that this hypothesis is less viable than the Young Earth "hypothesis." The hypothesis is completely in line with Scripture (heck, pick a scripture, we'll accommodate it with yet another version of Earth, no worries! And it has the advantage of being at least partially provable -- I can point to things that show that at some version of Earth is billions of years old.
<ding>
problem solved.
Everyone go home now.
The problem is not solved because the texts that I accept as incontrivertable faith do not say so. And my axioms are incontrovertable, because the texts say as such.
>:[
nice try!
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 9825) on :
So...pick a scripture Sam.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
We aren't disagreeing with your Scripture at all. Are you trying to say that God is not omnipotent???
Posted by seekingprometheus (Member # 9825) on :
I think we missed Sam's joke, Bob. (I did anyway, until I went back to check his previous posts). The thing about this topic is that it is so...unique...that I can't tell posts layered thick with sarcasm from posts that are...sincere.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ah...I wondered about that, but was too lazy to re-read the thread. Frankly, up to this point, I've merely read it to see how rivka and Dagonee demonstrate how extremely brilliant they both are.
Then I decided to demonstrate how silly I think this argument is. I hope I haven't spoiled other people's enjoyment of the thread, but there are so many tautologies and flawed assumptions inherent in both extremes of this argument that I find myself frustrated into complete nonsensical utterances when I see it come up in the Hatrack topic rotation.
At any rate, I now declare my unwavering belief in God having created a version of Earth to accommodate sarcastically witty explanations of the Earth's origin as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Neato!
You could extend the idea to create versions of earth created for each different religious creation mythology. It would be pretty cool, because the Ásatrú would get a world made out of a god's armpit and eyebrow.
Seriously, who can pass that up?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:the Ásatrú would get a world made out of a god's armpit and eyebrow.
Southeastern Philly is a world now?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know. I sort of look at it the other way. Consider, you're a teacher and a student brings you a complicated science project. They give you a simplistic explanation of the surface aspects of it but this explanation turns out to be wrong.
Would you conclude that the student made it or that someone else made it and the student is trying to take credit for it?
I think all these gods came along, found the world and universe already made and have spent the centuries trying to take credit for it. Those tricksy gods.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
KarlEd
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Considering that Genesis makes it clear that the sky is a physical dome with water above it,
No, it doesn't. If you think it does, cite a source. It should be right there at the beginning, so it shouldn't be that hard for you to do. But you won't, because you can't, and you can't, because it doesn't say any such thing.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: and that underneath the earth is a vast ocean of water,
Nope. Doesn't say that, either.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: oh, and it's not a round ball but actually flat... does anyone actually argue that bit?
Since you made all of that up, why would anyone argue it?
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Also: Pi isn't 3. In the Tanak it's called 3, even though it's not. (again, God screwing with us?)
No, pi is not called 3 in the Tanakh. Anywhere. Where are you getting all of this nonsense from? I defy you to cite a place in the Tanakh where pi is given as 3.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Are these not true? If you are to claim they are, how do you rationalize the fact that the world simply doesn't work the way it's said in the Bible? By denying everything that doesn't fit, regardless of "Truth"?
Do you understand that making up "facts" that aren't true doesn't strengthen your argument? I mean, I could start by saying that George W. Bush is a cleverly disguised lizard, go on to point out that lizards aren't allowed, per the Constitution of the United States, to serve as President, and conclude from that that Bush should be removed for being a lizard. But I'd sound about as irrational as you if I were to try that.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: If you do concede these things aren't accurate, how can you claim that everything else is absolutely true, including the yet more improbable bits?
You started that sentence with the word "if". Since the clause beginning "if" is false, the rest of what you wrote is correspondingly meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Where the heck were the dinosaurs, and why were they never mentioned?
And why doesn't it ever say that Adam and Eve went to the bathroom, dammit? You expect me to believe that a guy lives for 930 years and never takes a dump?!
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Can you really say Pi is three, even though all physical evidence discredits this?
No one says that. Just you.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I don't know who you are, but I Rony!
0Megabyte, that old canard about pi in the Bible is typical of the superficial arguments that people come up with. Kings 7:2326 and II Chronicles 4:25 describe a huge brass bowl built by King Solomon. The diameter of this bowl was said to be 10 cubits, and the circumference was said to be 30 cubits. You say this is a mathematical error?
Here is what Kent Hovind said about this: "The diameter of 10 cubits is from outer rim to outer rim, the way anyone would measure a circular object. The circumference of 30 cubits, however, was of the inner circle, after subtracting the thickness of the brass (two handbreadthsone for each side) from which the bowl was made."
He also notes that the bowl could have had a lip; the bowl did not actually have to have sides that thick.
The diameter would be used to determine how much space the bowl would take up as furniture; the circumference would be used to calculate the volume of liquid the bowl could contain.
I love to quote Kent Hovind when he so easily exposes the thoughtlessness of critics, because anti-creationists are so fond of him.
[ November 18, 2006, 07:22 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
OMegabyte, many people believe the Bible does give some descriptions of dinosaurs in Job 40:15-24; and in 41:1-34 (entire chapter). The first one, behemoth, seems to be describing an apatosaur (or brontosaur). The second one, leviathan, spoken of in chapter 41, seems to be describing a T-Rex. There is some reason to believe T-Rex actually could breathe fire, in the sense of ejecting from its nostrils binary chemicals that when mixed together would burst into flame. The bombardier beetle does something similar today, ejecting from its abdomen binary chemicals that when mixed heat up quickly to the boiling point. T-Rex skulls do show two extra cavities behind the nasal cavities, which could have been reservoirs for flammable binary compounds. I heard that when Japanese filmmakers were first dreaming up Godzilla, they used the description of leviathan given in Job chapter 40.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You don't need to defend the pi thing, actually: pi is equal to three.
Before you accuse me of not knowing basic mathematics, let me ask you what value of pi the Bible should have used. 3.14? 3.14 is scarcely a better value than 3 is. It is not correct either. I it were said that the pool was 10 cubits across and 31 and 2/5 cubits around, it would still be open to the exact same criticism, because 3.14 is not the value of pi. 3.1415926535897932384626 is a bit closer, but still not correct. 3.14 is an estimate with three significant digits. 3 is an estimate with one significant digit. I have read the entire Old and New Testaments, and I don't, offhand, ever remember decimals used (though I am open to correction), so it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that a one-significant-digit estimate should be used. (The number 30 also has one significant digit, before somebody jumps in to say that it should have read 31 cubits. I'm not a literalist anyway--heck, I don't even know what I believe--but there is no reason why being a literalist precludes estimates. When it says it rained for forty days and forty nights--am I remembering that correctly--does that necessarily mean that it rained for precisely 960 hours, or would the statement be just as true if it actually rained for 953 hours and 27 minutes?)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Well, that depends on how many time zones Noah crossed...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Huh. So someone like Rivka, who isn't sure . . . what, she fades in and out of each Earth like Captain Kirk? Or does she have twice as much Earth as you and I do? 'Cause that's not fair at all.
That is not really an accurate summation of my position. I am pretty sure that the Earth is quite a bit older than 6000 years. I simply am willing to accept the possibility that I am wrong. I am also willing to accept the possibility that it was created last Tuesday, while I was in the middle of my week of training in NYC. However, since I have absolutely no way to detect whether either of the latter two scenarios is the case, I will act on the assumption which is supported by the evidence of my senses -- and not in contradiction to my beliefs. (Although not because of anything Schroeder said. I wince every time his name gets brought up in these debates. To quote my father (who has a physics degree, which I do not), the book is "bad physics and bad Torah." There are many better ones.)
So I'm more like a slightly polar molecule, I think.
Bob ElJay
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Icarus, the value for pi cannot be calculated from the dimensions given in Kings 7:2326 and II Chronicles 4:25, because, as I explained earlier, the thickness of the side of the bowl was not given. The outside diameter was given so it could be figured how much room the brass bowl would take up, and the inside circumference was needed to calculate the capacity.
I doubt that the decimal point could be used in the Bible, since zero and the decimal point were inventions of Arabic numerals.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
My point is simply that you don't have to defend that point, especially with explanations that sound like rationalizations. pi does equal three. End of story.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I always thought leviathan was a sea creature.
Just looked up Job 41 and it seems pretty clearly to be describing a sea creature at several points.
A T-Rex, flame-thrower-equipped or not, would seem to be not exactly what the author had in mind.
Other references to leviathan seem to be referring to a sea serpent.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
rivka, don't spoil my funny with facts!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was always under the impression that leviathan meant sea creature as well.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*giggle*
I posted in this thread at 3:14.
EDIT: I will choose to assume that on somebody's clock, it was precisely 3:14.16. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: rivka, don't spoil my funny with facts!
Sorry.
*flickers obligingly*
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: *giggle*
I posted in this thread at 3:14.
Nope. 12:14.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Nope. 12:14.
Only by your outmoded west coast time! 12:14 was, like, so three hours ago!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So, what is the future like? What lottery numbers should I play?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*cries* I missed my chance! And it's all your fault!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
3 14 1 59 26 53 5
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey, it was there for you riv. The score of the Ohio-Michigan game was the winner of the Pick-4 lotto in Ohio yesterday. The Ohio lottery had to pay out 4.5 million in winnings.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"A Fistful of Dagonees"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"When a man with a 45 meets a man with a rifle... you said the man with the pistol's a dead man. Let's see if that's true. "
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
How do we know T-Rex couldn't swim? But even if Leviathon was not T-Rex, it could have been some other aquatic dinosaur, of which there were many.
Doing a search in Yahoo on "Aquatic Dinosaurs," I came across an article by Jeffrey J. Harrison which contains the following:
"Words used for Dinosaurs in the Bible
"The primary word for dinosaurs or dragons in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Hebrew Old Testament, known as the Masoretic text or MT) is tannin or in the plural tanninim.* The Hebrew root of this word (tanan) may indicate that these animals made a howling sound (that they were 'howlers'). Tannin is often translated in the Old Greek (the Septuagint or LXX)** with the Greek word drakon (drakontes in the plural; the source of our English word 'dragon'), or when it is an aquatic reptile with the Greek word keetos (keetee in the plural), indicating a large sea monster. Artistic representations of the keetos that swallowed Jonah made by early Greek-speaking Christians show it as a large, dragon-like aquatic reptile."
Note the interesting suggestion that the sea creature that swallowed Jonah may actually have been an aquatic dinosaur.
Later in the same article is this commentary on the Genesis creation account:
"Gen. 1:21: 'And God created the great tanninim (keeteeLXX) and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind.' These 'great tanninim' must have been the most remarkable creatures in the sea to be singled out in this way, above all other sea creatures, in the Creation account. These are clearly the great dinosaur-like sea monsters of which legends abound around the world. The word 'great' indicates that they were of remarkable size, but also implies that there were other kinds of tanninim that were not as large. (NAS has here 'great sea monsters; NKJ has 'great sea creatures.')"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:These 'great tanninim' must have been the most remarkable creatures in the sea to be singled out in this way, above all other sea creatures, in the Creation account. These are clearly the great dinosaur-like sea monsters of which legends abound around the world.
This person has a vey low threshold for using the word "clearly."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Even if the T-Rex could swim, there is no way he spent more time swimming then walking.
"And G-d created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and G-d saw that it was good."
Also they are not being singled out. It mentions sea creatures, land creatures, and flying creatures.
I like the way some one else explained their belief (can't remember who or where). Made it sound like 6,000 years ago God created 6 billion years of history. I can accept that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:This person has a vey low threshold for using the word "clearly."
Clearly.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... a large, dragon-like aquatic reptile
Cross-reference the following:
Ezekiel 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, "My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself."
Old Testament verses about strange animals do not necessarily refer to dinosaurs. There are modern animals that also match the Biblical descriptions.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Except that catching a crocodile is not nearly so difficult as attempting to catch leviathan as described in Job 41.
Of course, the metaphoric reference is to a "great" dragon. How big can Nile crocodiles get, anyway?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Maybe the "great" wasn't in reference to size. Maybe they were just really really tasty.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Maybe you are all guessing on what a vague passage means.
Isa. 27: 1 1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea. "
I think the dragon in this passage is the devil. But I am open to the idea that leviathan and dragons are all concepts that have remained with mankind since the actual dinosaurs went extinct. There are tons of scriptures that reference dragons.
Or you could be like my grandmother and believe dinosaurs are all a myth and scientists planted the bones that they themselves artificially created. My grandmother is a funny lady.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Why so desperate to find evidence of dinosaurs? There's no mention of kangaroos or Windows XP either. Because neither had any need to be there.
Nor do dinosaurs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why so desperate to find evidence of dinosaurs? There's no mention of kangaroos or Windows XP either. Because neither had any need to be there.
Nor do dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs are cool, they always ought to be mentioned.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Cooler than kangaroos, koalas, and wallabies? I think not.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I think Windows XP was covered under pestilence and plague.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I'd be interested to know how the giant people mentioned in the O.T. (Ankims, Emins, Zamzummins, Og's bedstead, etc.) fit into the evolutionary scheme.
I guess if giants were constantly being placed at the forefront of battles there would be some selective pressure against them.
Perhaps giant people once faced off against giant reptiles in a battle for supremacy. That would make a cool video game.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why so desperate to find evidence of dinosaurs? There's no mention of kangaroos or Windows XP either. Because neither had any need to be there.
Nor do dinosaurs.
The nachash was a dinosaur. That's why they're gone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rivka: Ok ok
Take Deinonychus, 3 Meters long 1.5 meters tall at the hip
Huge brain cavity, activity rate suggesting warm bloodedness. Most likely hunted in coordinated packs, and with brain masses that big, probably highly organized.
Incidentally those Velociraptors you saw in Jurassic Park were actually modeled after Deinonychus.
Or Supersaurus he was 35 meters long, to say nothing of its height. His scapula (shoulder bone) by itself was 6 feet tall! I've always seen elephants as majestic, but Supersaurus was something else!
Sharpie: Comedy Gold Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why so desperate to find evidence of dinosaurs? There's no mention of kangaroos or Windows XP either. Because neither had any need to be there.
Nor do dinosaurs.
The nachash was a dinosaur. That's why they're gone.
*blink*
Uh . . . never heard that one before. Source?
BB, so they were big and nasty. Who cares?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The nachash was a dinosaur. That's why they're gone.
...I think you're kidding. Right?
Doesn't fit what we know, but very creative. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by rivka: [qb] Why so desperate to find evidence of dinosaurs? There's no mention of kangaroos or Windows XP either. Because neither had any need to be there.
Nor do dinosaurs.
BB, so they were big and nasty. Who cares?
Deinonychus at 5-6 feet tall is hardly BIG. I was trying to project some of the variety behind dinosaurs. Have you ever seen how kangaroos reproduce? Spewing out that barely formed cluster of cells that has to climb its way into the pouch and latch onto a tit and form from there. It gives one the notion that were we all kangaroos, abortion would be an entirely different beast to outline.
If I could have all the dinosaures or just wallabies, koalas, and kangaroos the choice for me would be obvious.
Of course I am discarding the ecological difficulties of having all the dinosaurs back, I just mean conceptually I think the sum value of dinosaurs is greater then those 3 mammals.
Koalas to me are like Panda's, they eat only ONE kind of food and you have to PERSUADE them to reproduce. With all I understand of biology its a miracle to me both animals are not extinct yet.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why are you arguing about whether a document 3000 years old, translated and retranslated through any number of languages, and exceedingly vague in the first place, might possibly refer to dinosaurs? There's a much simpler way to decide: Just date the dinosaur bones and see if they were around in Biblical times. Now, I realise Ron, being a creationist, doesn't accept the validity of dating methods; but then at least you could argue about something real, as opposed to "This is clearly a dinosaur!" "No it's not!"
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I've been to the Grand Canyon a few times, and I wonder how long it would take for the Pre-Cambrian life forms found at the bottom of the canyon to live, die, get buried, fossilize, recede below a mile of rock, and then erode their way back to the surface.
Of course my viewpoint is slightly biased, being the product of about 1000 years of geologic stability, but I suppose with a couple of fly-bys from some cooperative planets we could push some shallow-water marine life down a mile, and then with enough heat, concentrated chemicals, and abrasive particles, we could bring it all back to the surface within a Biblical time frame.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The nachash was a dinosaur. That's why they're gone.
...I think you're kidding. Right?
Doesn't fit what we know, but very creative.
I could be kidding. I'm probably mostly kidding. But who knows?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the way, the battle cry for the scientist side of this kind of thing is "VAAAAARVES!" Google 'em, they're fun.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:they're fun.
Not for the poor college students who have to count them. Two million in a 260-ft core sample.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I did some strange thinking over the past weekend. I took the assumption that YE Creationism is 100% correct, that 6000 years or so ago God in his infinite wisdom and with his infinite power created the universe. (Hey, Ive considered stranger premises before and kept my sanity, well most of it.)
This is not to be a straw-man attack on YE. I dont want to propose flawed analysis of what YE would entail, then pat myself on the back by flaunting those flaws. The assumptions I am using are standard that Ive heard in debates before.
Most important, for my analysis, is the idea that starlight was created in-transit. The photons and all the other recordable radiations that modern astronomers use to create the current hypotheses on cosmology were all set at the time of creation, in motion towards Earth. The light we see in most of the stars at night never derived from those stars, but were created by God directly.
My first question was Why would God do this. It seems like God as Pranksterpulling a fast one to force those who use the logical mind God gave us to sin and agnosticism.
You cant ask Why of God though. God is perfect and we are not. God has a POV that encompasses everything. It is like an Ant questioning why we drop our Doritos where we do.
Asking Why is not a valid question when it comes to God.
Or its the only valid question, but assuming we know the answer is not very logical.
My second question had far more interesting speculation. Did God create the entire universe of billions of galaxies or did God just create the stream of photons (and other radiations) that we perceive as the light of the stars? The answers to this question I can detail in two separate cosmologiesone is Big U and one is Little u.
If God was going to all the trouble of creating the light from distant stars to Earth, why not save time and effort and just create the light. Why make galaxies billions of light years away when creation will have completed its course before even light from those stars could be seen?
Stars for most of humanitys existence were not giant balls of incandescent gas. They were points of light that moved across the night sky. So when God created the stars in Genesisperhaps he just created the points of light, or streams of light. He created many, and in such ways as they appear to be stars, galaxies, quasars, clouds of dust and nebulae and all the rest of the astronomical encyclopedia.
I am tempted to ask Why? again. But I have ruled that question out. After all, without stars as suns of other worlds would we have Science Fiction? Would we be missing Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, Serenity? Would we be missing Enders Game? Would we be missing Hatrack? Isnt Hatrack enough of a reason for God to create the stars that we humans misunderstand as other worlds?
Now if all the information that we have of extra-solar existence is in fact Angels making lights for our benefits, we get into some real existential questions here. What is real and what is false dataor God planted data? Do the planets exist or are they just figments of divine light emissions. Sure, weve sent unmanned ships to explore the planets, but they have only sent us information electronically. That is data sent via the electromagnetic radiation. This is stuff we already think God may be manipulating, and that we perceive with a false sense of Universe.
Perhaps Heaven is just beyond the orbit of the Moon? Ships that fly past it crash into Heaven. Their data, however, continues to be sent back to Earth for whatever Divine Reason God wills it.
Unless, of course, that the whole moon landing was faked. Thats an entire different thought process I wont delve into. Besides, we know heaven isnt just high up in the sky. We have satellites that provide us with phone service, TV service, and death rays. Those are technologically provenarent they? You cant convince me that Dish Network is divinely influenced. I mean I love my TIVO, but thats going too far.
If we cant trust what we see with our eyes, with our telescopes, with our antenna, who knows what may be really going on. Maybe the earth is at the center of the universe? If the Crab Nebula could be faked, why couldnt the orbits of the planets?
Now I like the idea that the Stars are just angelic light projections, and that come the final battle, the stars will descend upon the earth, each a small light emitting Angel and fight Satan. Well, I think that would make a cool visual for a movie anyway. Still the u cosmology is just thata small u. I find it claustrophobic, lacking in the infinite that I associate with God.
The Big U is interesting if we do ask Why. The big U says that God, in one day, made all the stars in heaven. In other words, he created the universe, all the galaxies, stars, systems and planets all at one time. Our microscopes dont lie. Our antenna are correct.
Why would God do this? God is omnipotent, so he doesnt have to conserve resources or power, but still, that is a whole lot of creation going on. Why?
Who says that the Earth is the only planet God created life on during that week?
Now we might assume that all over the galaxies, all over the giant Universe, 6000 or so years ago untold numbers of Adams awoke. Did they all look alike? Well, we are all made in Gods image, but God does not have a set image. Diversity seems to be a constant in the universe, so I dont see why a universe full of human clones has to be essential.
Now take a moment and try to accept the power and scale of this creation. God did not create a small garden, or an angelic valley. He created a universe so vast we still are not positive of its size, stretching as far as light can fly in 4 billion years plus.
Speaking of light, why did he create the light between all these worlds? Here is where the Why becomes interesting. Perhaps the Why is to start us wanting to meet those other people. Perhaps the Why is to drive us out amongst the stars to meet the rest of Gods children.
Take a moment and try to accept the power and scale of that.
There is, of course, one major problem with this cosmology. Ok, there are many, but for now well focus on one.
The Hebrews should have no problem with other chosen peoples on other planets. After all, God only promised them Jerusalem and the rest of the world recognizing their importance. (You can all shoot me now for misremembering what exactly the covenants promise the faithful of Israel when they return to Jerusalem)
The Christians, however, have a big problem. Jesus is the one and only son of God. Does our planet just happen to be the lucky one where he was born and died? That would be difficult, for how do you spread the word of the Savior when the Savior died for your sins light years away? To a guy from Rigel III, what is Rome or a cross?
Did Jesus go on a galactic walk-a-bout, spreading his story and his name across Galaxies? How long would that take?
Or were there multiple Jesu, born on each planet, dieing for the sins of each world. Perhaps when they say Jesus is the Son of God and Man, on Rigel III WRERU is the son of God and Rigellia.
I dont know where I am going with this, except the fact that YE is fun to play with.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:The Hebrews should have no problem with other chosen peoples on other planets. After all, God only promised them Jerusalem and the rest of the world recognizing their importance.
Why would there be other chosen people? Why assume that every planet with life is merely a reflection of our own? How incredibly boring.
quote:Or were there multiple Jesu, born on each planet, dieing for the sins of each world. Perhaps when they say Jesus is the Son of God and Man, on Rigel III WRERU is the son of God and Rigellia.
Didn't I read a short story like that a numbers of years back?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: ...the idea that starlight was created in-transit. The photons and all the other recordable radiations that modern astronomers use to create the current hypotheses on cosmology were all set at the time of creation, in motion towards Earth. The light we see in most of the stars at night never derived from those stars, but were created by God directly.
Maybe God waited to fill in the non-visible spectra from the various stars until somebody started tinkering with radio telescopes and IR and UV imaging.
And God would have had to pre-program into our little light show interruptions and pulses and explosions.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The Hebrews should have no problem with other chosen peoples on other planets. After all, God only promised them Jerusalem and the rest of the world recognizing their importance. (You can all shoot me now for misremembering what exactly the covenants promise the faithful of Israel when they return to Jerusalem)
We pretty much hold that if there's extraterrestrial life, none of it has free will. Only human beings, of all of God's creations, have free will.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While that is certainly an opinion, I don't believe it is the only one.
And in any case, until and unless we actually make contact with extra-terrestrials, it's strictly theoretical.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The Hebrews should have no problem with other chosen peoples on other planets.
As usual, there are wildly diverse opinions on this one. That said, I'd agree that it's not a major issue either way.
quote:The Christians, however, have a big problem. Jesus is the one and only son of God. Does our planet just happen to be the lucky one where he was born and died? That would be difficult, for how do you spread the word of the Savior when the Savior died for your sins light years away? To a guy from Rigel III, what is Rome or a cross?
While I doubt this really represents a major theological issue (unless and until other sentient life is found, this is a moot point), it should be noted that more than one theologian and SF writer has used this as the springboard for speculative fiction. I rather like C.S. Lewis's Space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength) myself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, my assumption is that, if there is life on other planets (and I like to think there is), that an infinite and loving God has figured out a plan for that life as well.
I like some of your possibilities; here's another: Perhaps life on other planets never "fell". Their metaphorical* Adam and Eve didn't eat the metaphorical apple - whatever that means. They stayed "with" God so they wouldn't need Jesus to mend that rift. Lewis played with this in one of his books in the trilogy (can't remember which right now).
*IMO
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:they're fun.
Not for the poor college students who have to count them. Two million in a 260-ft core sample.
Bah, what are undergraduates for? Anyway, I was actually thinking of the Lake Taigetsu ones, with only 18000 or so.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by skillery:
quote:they're fun.
Not for the poor college students who have to count them. Two million in a 260-ft core sample.
Bah, what are undergraduates for?
I started out majoring in geology at BYU but bailed out after the second semester. Guess I quit just in time. Missed all the fun. Interestingly, BYU has a fairly strong geology program, not as big as the University of Arizona's, but big enough that they've got a sizable fossil collection under the football stadium, this in spite of being a church-sponsored school.
I remember a few second-semester students getting upset about evolution and 5 billion year-old-earth that is required learning for anyone who hopes to become a competent geologist. Our professor dredged up some obscure quote by Brigham Young, saying the earth is millions of years old. He was off by a few zeros, but that quote seemed to soothe us tender, young Mormon seminary graduates.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
steven, stop being a poseur.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While that is certainly an opinion, I don't believe it is the only one.
And in any case, until and unless we actually make contact with extra-terrestrials, it's strictly theoretical.
[interested]What test could be performed to determine whether or not the aliens had free will?[/interested]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I can't imagine.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
You'd also have to prove that the extraterrestrial wasn't God.
quote:Only human beings, of all of God's creations, have free will.
Then either the behavior of cats is totally random, or cats have some way of receiving orders from the cat god.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
What test can be performed to prove that WE have free will?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I think it involves peeing on a little stick of chemically treated cardboard and seeing if it turns blue.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I respect the scientific disciplines, see no problem having my kids learn evolutionary theory in school and yet also believe strongly in a creator God. And I don't feel like there's any conflict there. I just accept that I may never know the intricacies of the creation of the universe until I can ask God about it.
So, do you think there will be a FAQ board when we get to heaven. I'm sure this one will come up quite often for God. Maybe God is the one that invented FAQ pages. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
...or perhaps cats were created by someone else: Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes there is a test for Free Will.
"Do you want the blue pill or the red pill?"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I think it was Hyperion by Dan Simmons where the priest was travelling around the known universe (and especially to the planet Hyperion) to find signs of Jesus of the cross.
If I remember right, he reasoned that if he could find proof that other peoples believed in Jesus or the Bible, that would be final proof that God exists.
But if he didn't find proof, it didn't prove anything either way. I always thought that was kind of unfair. There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, but there are ways to prove that God does exist.
So I guess what I'm saying is that if we did find aliens (or they found us) and they also believed in God/Jesus/the Bible, then that would be proof that they had free will. If they did not believe, then it doesn't prove anything either way.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:but there are ways to prove that God does exist.
Only for certain definitions of "God".
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Dan Raven's look at what a young earth would mean is interesting. (It also sounds like a good story coming on.) A big stage set, with an incomprehensible motive for the stage designer.
Recommended reading: Calculating God, Robert Sawyer I think it is. (No young earth, but still sort of relevant.)
The issue of the Incarnation is separate, of course. Another good source of stories. I can't see any theological difficulties, though.
quote:The Christians, however, have a big problem. Jesus is the one and only son of God. Does our planet just happen to be the lucky one where he was born and died? That would be difficult, for how do you spread the word of the Savior when the Savior died for your sins light years away? To a guy from Rigel III, what is Rome or a cross?
Surely God's powerful enough to spread the word without our help. And if he's everywhere, he won't have far to go.
quote:Did Jesus go on a galactic walk-a-bout, spreading his story and his name across Galaxies? How long would that take?
We're talking divinity here -- it would take as long as he wanted it to, or no time at all.
quote:Or were there multiple Jesu, born on each planet, dieing for the sins of each world. Perhaps when they say Jesus is the Son of God and Man, on Rigel III WRERU is the son of God and Rigellia.
I still don't see a problem.
Fun topic, though. Recommended reading: Sin of Origin by John Barnes. (Not a believer himself, but his story is about a Christian mission to an alien world.) Speaker for the Dead, of course, by OSC "Religion and Rocketry," C S Lewis, an essay on this topic.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
The idea that God, 6000 years ago, created the universe so that it appeared to be @16 billion years old just to test the faith of people in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries is so utterly contemptible and insane that, if it turns out to be true, I'll ask to be roasted for all eternity rather than adore such a being.
Oh, wait...
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Well put, David Bowles, well put.
Posted by Tyler (Member # 9930) on :
i have a question. perhaps for anyone who actually is a YEC.... why? is there any proof (im not trying to be sarcastic or whatever) but it seems to me, God is a pretty big fellow, and has got a good amount of resources. So he could probably handle a really old earth.
For instance. perhaps those magical 7 days in the beginning of the bible... perhaps they were much longer then our 24 hour days. perhaps many years long. like, a thousand years each day or something. because, if you think about it, it would take a freaking long time to name all of the animals as Adam was asked to do on the 6th day. so ... just maybe? perhaps? anyone?
sorry to interupt the conversations involving all the dinosaur talk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What I have never been able to grasp is why this is considered a theologically important or even interesting question. From a religious viewpoint, why do we care when we were created? How does the answer to that change anything about how we live, treat others, love, worship, pray...?
Posted by Tyler (Member # 9930) on :
in response to my own post, i actually went and read all the posts instead of just skimming, and now i get the standpoint. i still disagree with YEC, but i understand.
and, i agree kmbboots.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
km, why its important:
Imagine you've just been given the ultimate map to running your life. You follow it to the letter, only to be told by someone else that, "hey, that map's not to scale."
or
Some fear that if one word, one idea that is in the Bible can be proven to be open to interpretation, then everything in the Bible can be open to interpretation.
If "a day" in Exodus does not equate one day on earth, then what else is open to adjustment? Perhaps Goliath wasn't really that tall, or the Flood didn't really flood the whole earth, or that Homosexuals really are not perversions unto the lord, or perhaps we aren't truly the chosen people.
Its a slippery slope once you allow even the slightest interpetation of the Bible. Next thing you know the world is full of people practicing Moral Relativism and eating Bacon Cheeseburgers for lunch.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Why do people insist on interpreting the words of the bible and stating that if that interpretation is not true the entire bible is bunk?
In no place does the Bible actually say, the universe is 6000 years old.
Why must people go to the most archaic passages in the Bible that are demonstratively the most symbolic of the entire Canon and then read them with more literalism then even the teachings of Jesus?
Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood in order to be saved. I have to wonder that if that was the only passage we had from Jesus what sorts of crazy interpretations would manifest themselves in Christian churches. (Not trying to take issue with the doctrine of transubstantiation)
Genesis says Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate some fruit. Does anybody really believe that Adam and Eve literally ate some fruit that embued them with knowledge and also modified their bodies in such a way as to make them mortal?
It is not impossible to read the scriptures and ask perhaps the GOD who arranged for them to be written for clarification. TRUST ME its out there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why should we take your TRUST ME over all the other TRUST MEs out there, who say precisely the opposite? This is exactly the reason that faith shouldn't be used as an argument, even to yourself.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But...there ARE people who believe it all literally. If there are problems, they ascribe it to bad translations or imperfect human understanding.
Some faiths teach that the bread and wine are transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ. Not symbolic. Real. So that particular counter-example for Christians only works for some sects, not all.
The longevity of the patriarchs and lost immortality of Adam and Eve is not just taken to be literally true, but the ages given for the folks and there descendants is the basis for tracking back the Earth's age to the days of creation. So...yeah, taken as literally true along with the rest of it.
I don't ascribe to that position, but I know it's anything but internally inconsistent. That particular "attack" on the YEC folks just really doesn't work to reach them on any level.
And Dan is absolutely correct, the reason they won't hear of a different age for the Earth is that it opens the door to question the veracity of everything in the Bible.
I personally feel that it puts faith on far too shaky a ground. It demands that God never speak metaphorically, for one thing. Which truly is demonstrably false if one takes Jesus at his word (um, he TELLS us he is speaking in parables...). So, if Jesus, as God, can use metaphor, why couldn't God do so all along?
In fact, even some of the stuff that is obviously meant to have a literal meaning might also have a metaphoric meaning. How clever is this God?
Ans: At the very least, more clever than us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why should we take your TRUST ME over all the other TRUST MEs out there, who say precisely the opposite? This is exactly the reason that faith shouldn't be used as an argument, even to yourself.
gah I can't respond to you right now KOM, maybe tonight.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Well...rather than wait for later, I can at least see that KoM and BlackBlade are using the words "TRUST ME" to mean two different things.
BlackBlade isn't saying that he's got a handle on the one and only correct information -- he's only saying that if you seek answers you will find them.
KoM is reacting, I think, to a different kind of TRUST ME -- the one that says simply "here's the right answer, take it and live your life accordingly." In other words, received knowledge with nothing else to see or learn, ever.
BB is actually pointing, I believe, to something far removed from taking received knowledge as the one and only source of truth.
Correct me if I'm wrong, guys.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
BB is certainly asserting that the answer is, in fact, out there; he does not seem to have considered the possibility that other people get other answers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: BB is certainly asserting that the answer is, in fact, out there; he does not seem to have considered the possibility that other people get other answers.
Oh come now KOM, I can be quite certain that I have found the right answers, and yet be completely certain that others that earnestly seek answers will find them.
Surely you won't slight me for being confident in my own conclusions?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I don't know the New Testament by heart, but isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter? (I believe it was a letter from an apostle to a new church, when a disagreement about what to believe arose.)
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go." There isn't an asterisk in the Bible that says, "Any who accept Jesus will be saved*"
*Unless you believe in everything but YEC.
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here? Make the most of life and enjoy it; it's far too short to be spent caught up in the details of something that don't matter.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Since your conclusions are not just wrong, but obviously wrong, I will indeed.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And thus ends all semblance of polite discussion.
KoM -- why do you bother coming into threads like this, or responding to people if all you intend to do is shut down the discussion?
Posted by Tyler (Member # 9930) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: And thus ends all semblance of polite discussion.
KoM -- why do you bother coming into threads like this, or responding to people if all you intend to do is shut down the discussion?
*agrees
i love the way cs. lewis illustrates the issue of extraterristial life.
but more then anything, id like to say this.
God is a big guy. really big. seriously, hes like... God. so perhaps we cant understand him. we can understand some of the simple qualities of this earth, with the simple sense we have. but all everyone seems to be looking at are the 'known' facts, and we are all drawing these lines of who's on who's side, while none of it particularly pertains. i dont think anyone here who fully believed the Torah as truth, a practicing Jew, is going to suddenly change their mind. rather, we're all just getting pissed.
'you belief sucks' 'no, yours sucks'
so perhaps we can return to discussion where we actually state facts and give some semblence of reasoning. perhaps.
now im sure my post will be picked apart. GO! do it. but please, reasoning.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: ...isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter?
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go."
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here?
The problem I have with these ideas is that they encourage blind faith and discourage questioning the details. The details DO matter because they provide evidence for or against arguments made by either side.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: ...isn't there a verse that basically tells us to believe whatever we want to about the smaller details, since in the face of believing in Christ as savior, they don't matter?
I mean, God isn't going to say, "Oh, you truly believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord, but believe Evolution too. Down you go."
In the end, what does it matter how the Earth was made but that we're here?
The problem I have with these ideas is that they encourage blind faith and discourage questioning the details. The details DO matter because they provide evidence for or against arguments made by either side.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
I don't think the details matter. And I think it encourages blind faith to say that all details do matter. But I also think that really, the core competence (oh no, I have marketing plan on the brain) of Christianity is love through belief in Christ. I mean, my definition of Christian is pretty much someone who believes in Christ. So does it matter if they believe in Him on a boat or on a train, in a car or on a plane? Saying that every detail matters opens up the floor for spectacular finger-pointing about who's REALLY a Christian because they believe that you shouldn't be close friends with "non-Christians" or that women shouldn't wear pants or whatever.
-pH
Posted by Frozenoak (Member # 9454) on :
That's quite a read. I gave up fighting this a long time ago. Neither side is willing to believe the other side has an argument. I myself stand Firmly on the side of Creation. I also have reason to believe that the world (including the universe) is approx. 6000 years old, that God made the the earth (and the rest of the universe) in 6 24 hour periods, that man and dinosaurs co-existed, and that Noah's flood covered the entire earth.
I would go into details but it is a tossing back and forth of beliefs that are more religion than science fact. I have seen in my life no evidence to either side of the debate that proves/disproves anything. I get somewhat annoyed that evolution is described as a fact/law when nothing of the kind has been (or can be) proven.
And just for the record; I, as a Christian do not belive that God has, does, or ever will Lie.
Posted by Homestarrunner (Member # 5090) on :
I think our beliefs about the origins of humanity strongly affect our beliefs about the purpose of humanity and of life itself. In my opinion, those beliefs are closely tied to "Christian" thought. Believing we're here for a purpose and that our good thoughts and actions are not in vain makes a big difference in how we interact with the world. And Christ is a major player in advancing humanity's purpose in life.
Whether or not the earth is 6,000 years old or 2 billion doesn't matter quite as much as here it is, and we're on it. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How does the answer to that change anything about how we live, treat others, love, worship, pray...?
Our purpose on earth is not necessarily to live, love, worship, pray, and be nice to others.
There's enough calling of plagues down from heaven, laying waste to entire nations, chopping off of heads, and booting moneychangers out of temples in the scriptures to suggest that being nice is not what we're all about.
That little incident of Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed should tell you all you need to know about our objective here on earth.
Knowing that the earth was created, knowing who created it, and knowing why it was created should leave no doubt in the minds of believers as to whom it is they should obey.
If we were all spawned from pond scum on an accidental planet, then whom do we obey? Does it matter? By what absolute measure are we of any worth?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Genesis says Adam and Eve were immortal until they ate some fruit. Does anybody really believe that Adam and Eve literally ate some fruit that embued them with knowledge and also modified their bodies in such a way as to make them mortal?
BlackBlade, aren't you LDS? (Sorry if I'm wrong about that.) Mormon doctrine is pretty much the above.* I'm not exactly sure where this is stated, but I think it is in either The Miracle of Forgiveness or in Jesus, the Christ, both of which are pretty much considered authoritative and are among the few books missionaries are allowed to read besides the "Standard Works" (i.e. the "Scriptures"). This was stated explicitly by the author (Either an LDS prophet or apostle) in response to the idea that the "fruit" was a euphemism and the sin was actually sexual.
(*Note I didn't say "Most Mormons believe . . . " Mormons, like members of all religions, believe many things on a personal level that are not official doctrine of their church and are even sometimes contrary to such.)
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Whether or not we all agree on such questions as "When was the earth created?" or "What will happen after we pass away?", the present reality will not be changed by merely believing something. I agree with BlackBlade in the sense that the truth is out there for all of us to find, but you have to to be willing to find it. Or in other words: keep an open mind. The chances of this happening are IMO impeded by the fact that most people who believe in God do not follow the first (and most important) commandment. Which was just God's way of saying 'keep an open mind'.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't exactly understand how you get to "keep an open mind" from:
Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your mind and all your soul.
Or similar words.
Now, the 2nd commandment, which is like unto the first, to love your neighbor as yourself...that would seem to get us there unambiguously.
Except, of course, that some people split the world into "neighbor" and "not neighbor."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Isn't the parable that immediatly follows that supposed to clear up that "who is my neighbor" question?
As for the Catholic belief in transubstantiation -it can't really be quite nailed down. "Literal" is a somewhat misleading word when talking about the bread and wine becoming the Body of Christ. It is a change in "substance" but not in "accidents" - form, taste, molecular structure, appearance etc.
As for metaphor - why does this possibility frighten Christians? Jesus clearly used metaphor. "I am the vine" doesn't mean that grapes were growing out of Jesus's elbow. We can know that we are created beloved children of God without concerning ourselves so much with the details of when and how that we forget the why.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Jesus clearly used metaphor. "I am the vine" doesn't mean that grapes were growing out of Jesus's elbow.
Members of the He is Risen Church of the Holy Elbow Grapes might take exception to that.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots asked what is the theological importance of taking the Genesis account literally.
(1) If the Genesis account of man's creation and fall are not true, then the central theme of the Bible, that we need a Savior, who has been supplied in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is untrue.
(2) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the theological method by which Jesus saves us--by becoming the Second Adam, the new federated Head of the human race, qualified to take responsibility for us in punishment for sin, and represent us in righteousness for life, is false.
(3) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the reason the fourth commandment gives for keeping the Sabbath--"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" is invalidated.
(4) Since the Bible says that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, if what He said about creating the world in six days, then God Himself would be in error.
(5) My own personal view is that the universe cannot be vastly old, because God knew in advance that sin would come to present its deadly challenge, and He would have decided to get it over with ASAP. That is why He apparently created Lucifer first. The idea of God having the universe and angels and Lucifer, etc., waiting around for billions of years before finally the sin controversy broke out, is unreasonable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Caveat: I haven't read this thread, so this might have been said elsewhere.
One thing I find funny about this thread title that if I were a YEC, I would still believe that the earth is older that 6,000 years, but possibly younger than 10,000.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I agree with that, mr_porteiro_head. I belive life on earth is 6,000 to 8,000 years old, and the physical earth and universe are 10,000 to 12,000 years old. I part company with those YEYU creationists who believe God created the entire universe during creation week.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me clarify my position by saying that while I don't believe you're right, I also don't believe you're wrong. I have a guess, but that's about it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots asked what is the theological importance of taking the Genesis account literally.
(1) If the Genesis account of man's creation and fall are not true, then the central theme of the Bible, that we need a Savior, who has been supplied in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is untrue.
(2) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the theological method by which Jesus saves us--by becoming the Second Adam, the new federated Head of the human race, qualified to take responsibility for us in punishment for sin, and represent us in righteousness for life, is false.
(3) If the Genesis account is not literally true, then the reason the fourth commandment gives for keeping the Sabbath--"for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth...and rested the seventh day" is invalidated.
(4) Since the Bible says that God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger on tables of stone, if what He said about creating the world in six days, then God Himself would be in error.
(5) My own personal view is that the universe cannot be vastly old, because God knew in advance that sin would come to present its deadly challenge, and He would have decided to get it over with ASAP. That is why He apparently created Lucifer first. The idea of God having the universe and angels and Lucifer, etc., waiting around for billions of years before finally the sin controversy broke out, is unreasonable.
as for 1 and 2 - those don't have to be literal to be true. And I don't think that the fall is the central theme of the Bible. And I believe that Jesus coming to be salvation to the world has a much greater meaning and impact than making up for the sin of one man - we have all sinned and fallen short. Besides, God holding all men resonsible for the sin of one isn't terribly just now is it?
3) So you rest on Saturday do you? And God letting us know that rest is good for us isn't changed by the details.
4) God had fingers?
5) God isn't "in" time the same way we are. God is eternal. Maybe billions of years was what it took for humans to reach sufficient awareness for sin to be a meaningful concept to us. If not, how do you explain why God waited so long after Adam to become Jesus? Why wait thousands of years to save us from sin? He could have just done it the next "day" right?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:4) God had fingers?
Some of us do believe so.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
(not talking God as Jesus here) Are they giant fingers? Or normal size? Do they have special fingernails that allow Him to carve stone with them? Does God have lungs? Does He need oxygen? What colour are His eyes? Hair? How tall is He?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
kmbboots, Mormons believe that God (the Father) has "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's". Besides that fact, they make no specific assertions about it other than that our bodies are created in that image.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I cannot tell if you are mocking me or not, kmb.
edit: What Karl posted about LDS beliefs is pretty much correct .
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That was my first reaction, too, porter, but I have to give kmbboots the benefit of the doubt because that's not her normal style. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I gave her the benefit of the doubt myself by saying that I cannot tell.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Yeah, I wasn't implying you weren't. I was agreeing with you on the ambiguity of the post in question. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not mocking you , Porter. But I do think that particular idea of God is pretty limiting and opens up all sorts of questions like "how can God be everywhere if God has a body".
It is also pretty odd that we talk about Jesus as the incarnation if God (not Jesus/God) was already incarnate.
And thank you both gor the benefit of the doubt. I can sound pretty snarky.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, yes I do keep the seventh-day Sabbath. I am a Seventh-day Adventist.
The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
The theology of the Apostle Paul is abundantly clear that we are saved by Christ becoming our new Adam. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive....And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45-47)
When Adam sinned, he was the entire human race, and he forfeited his stewardship over earth. It does not matter if we were not each there personally. The son of a slave is born a slave. But if the father is redeemed, then all the children are redeemed as well.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
See, Mormons believe Jesus is the literal son of God, not God (the Father) himself incarnate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I am not mocking you , Porter. But I do think that particular idea of God is pretty limiting and opens up all sorts of questions like "how can God be everywhere if God has a body".
Of course there are questions. There are also answers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Karl, so was Mary impregnated the usual way, just by God? Porter, I would be interested in those answers.
And Ron, whatever day you rest, why does it matter that it was literal? As for needing a Saviour, that (for me) is not dependent on a literal Adam. We manage to sin and break our relationship with God all on our own - our own sins and failings are sufficient for that. It makes sense to me that Paul was also speaking metaphorically and using the metaphorical shorthand to make clear his point. As was usual practice during that time - and as was done by Jesus.
quote: The son of a slave is born a slave. But if the father is redeemed, then all the children are redeemed as well.
Still hardly just, though. And in literal fact not true. If a slave was freed, that did not automatically free his descendents.
These questions are not meant to be mocking. As a matter of fact I am a bit concerned with continuing as I don't know how to make these questions sound un-mocking and my intention is not to mock anyone's belief.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KarlEd, I knew a Christian who said that at some time in the past, God divided Himself up into Father, Son and Holy Spirit, like a cell dividing itself into three parts. But then people started ridiculing him for likening God to an amoeba, and he shut up.
It is difficult even to conceive of the nature of God. We just have to go by what the Bible says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:1-3, 14; NKJV) Note that this says Jesus Christ was the Creator--or at least took an active part in the Creation of everything. (Therefore He Himself could not be a created being.)
This also was part of the Messianic promise in Isaiah 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:so was Mary impregnated the usual way, just by God?
There is no LDS doctrine on how she became pregnant, beyond what it says in the New Testament.
I do not believe that God can physically be everywhere, or even in two places, at once. I do think, however, that God's power and influence can be everywhere at once.
Just as LDS do not believe in the standard Christian concept of an omnipotent God (we believe that he can do anything which can be done, but that there are some things which cannot be done, even by God, such as saving somebody who rejects the saving power of Christ), we don't believe in the standard Christian concept of an omnipresent God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So Ron, do think "finger" was literal when talking about writing the commandments?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, the literal day matters because God said that is WHY the seventh day is the Sabbath. See Exodus 20:8-11: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. FOR in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. THEREFORE the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Porter - it seems that our (LDS Christians and non-LDS Christians) have less in common theologically than I assumed. That's okay - it just means that our various ideas of God and Christianity etc. should be considered separate things in these kinds of discussions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, and for me that means that it is important to keep some significant time holy and dedicated to God. I don't think that God gets too bent out of shape over which day. Again, our ideas of God may be too incompatible to understand as the same kind of Christianity.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, God can manifest Himself in any form that He wants. If He appears in the form of a man, His fingers are real fingers. Even more real than ours in a sense--where our fingers can touch stone, His can cut stone.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbbots, rather than guess about what God does or does not "get bent out of shape over," I think it is more reasonable to simply believe what God says, because if He did not care about it, He would not say it.
A man might point to a lineup of seven women, and say "One of those seven women is my wife. But God is not too particular if I regard any one of the seven as my wife at any given time. Whatever is convenient for me."
God did not say the Sabbath is "a" seventh day, He said it is "the" seventh day of Creation Week.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ron and kmbboots, the Mormon concept of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are very concrete and specific. There are things that cannot be understood for sure (How do you qualify and quantify Heavenly Glory for exmpl?), but there are other things about God for LDS that are not simply a matter of figurative speech. For instance "God can manifest Himself in any for that He wants" would be against LDS beliefs. He could present signs of Himself any way that he would like, but ultimately He could not change form. I don't have time to explain more at this time. Maybe I or someone else can do that later.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic of Age of Earth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again...only if you insist on it being literal. I don't think that is a reasonable or consistant assumtion, given my understanding (as incomplete as it must be) of God.
Ron, for what it is worth, you have answered my question as to why you (and other Seventh-Day Adventists) are concerned with details. That I consider such details as "missing the big picture" would make me a very bad Seventh-Day Adventist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Sure, but it must be possible to believe in a fallen mankind without a belief that the fall is due to an actual, literal apple, 8000 years ago!
quote:Of course there are questions. There are also answers.
To assert the existence of answers, without any hint of what they are, is extremely useless, except in mathematics; and even there, it is considered polite to prove that there are answers.
quote:I have seen in my life no evidence to either side of the debate that proves/disproves anything.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Your ability to wilfully ignore scientific evidence is a fine parlor trick, but not very useful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Sure, but it must be possible to believe in a fallen mankind without a belief that the fall is due to an actual, literal apple, 8000 years ago!
As I have said, it certainly is for me.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
God the Holy Spirit manifested Himself in the form of a dove at Christ's baptism. (Mat. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32)
Occasional, do you believe that God has the power of omnipresence? Jesus gave that up forever when He took human nature upon Himself; but omnipresence should still be powers of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. In what form does God exist everywhere? (Isn't that a fun question?)
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
King of Men, the Bible doesn't say anything about the forbidden fruit being an apple. Everybody picks on the poor, innocent apple! Even people who name the parts of human anatomy. Women should have an "Adam's Apple" too, since Eve ate the forbidden fruit first. Though I guess that would really be an "Eve's Apple."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots, yes I do keep the seventh-day Sabbath. I am a Seventh-day Adventist.
The fall of man is about as basic a Bible doctrine as there can be. If man is not fallen, then man does not need a Savior, just a therapist.
Um... no. It's not a "Bible" doctrine, Ron; it's a Christian doctrine. Man is not "fallen" (a strange concept if there ever was one), and we do not need a "Savior". We have God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbbots, rather than guess about what God does or does not "get bent out of shape over," I think it is more reasonable to simply believe what God says, because if He did not care about it, He would not say it.
A man might point to a lineup of seven women, and say "One of those seven women is my wife. But God is not too particular if I regard any one of the seven as my wife at any given time. Whatever is convenient for me."
God did not say the Sabbath is "a" seventh day, He said it is "the" seventh day of Creation Week.
He also said that He gave Shabbat to the Children of Israel. That's us, the Jews. You seem to pick and choose when it comes to "simply believing what God says".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know that you are asking Occasional, but just for the record, I don't think there is a "physical form" for God except on those occasions, such as the incarnation, where He/She (neither, really, since there isn't a physical form) takes one. Or as God is present in all of us as the Holy Spirit.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ron, LDS believe the Holy Ghost didn't manifest "himself" as a dove as much as manifest his Sign in the form of a dove.
Your second question is a yes and no. He has the Power of omnipresence , but that doesn't mean that He is omnipresence incarnate.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, to those who believe the New Testament is part of the Bible, the fall of man and his need of a savior is a Bible doctrine. But even those who are Jewish regard Genesis as part of their Bible, and does not Genesis 3:15 promise a Messiah who would deliver mankind from the dominion and power of the serpent?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, Ron, it does not. The very idea of a savior the way you're talking is purely a Christian idea. It has no source in the Hebrew Bible, Christological claims to the contrary.
Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.
It's a freaking snake, Ron. Not "Satan". You start with a Christian interpretation (the serpent is the devil), and you wind up with a non-literal reading of the verse that you see as implying someone who will bruise the devil's head.
Start with good premises, and you have a much better chance of winding up with good conclusions.
Furthermore, calling a Christian interpretation "Bible doctrine" is offensive. You've co-opted the Bible in so many ways; recognize that the Christian Bible and the Bible are not synonymous.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, I think we have been over this before. God created the Sabbath at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the only humans in existence (no Jews yet). See Genesis 2:2, 3. And the fourth commandment specifically calls that day that God rested and set aside at the end of Creation week "the Sabbath." See Exodus 20:11. The very first thing that God did at the end of Creation Week was demonstrate to man what should be done on the Sabbath by divine example--He rested. If you wish to maintain that God created the world only for the Jews, then you can claim that the Sabbath was only for the Jews. Otherwise your claim is invalid.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lisa, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible. Your yelling to the contrary is NOT going to change anyone's mind. So . . . either show some respect and get used other people's beliefs or shut up! We get you have different ideas of religious things. That is pretty obvious. However, this is not the place to force your ideas of things on anyone (or mine either). In fact, I believe you are close to breaking the rules of Hatrack, but that is never my call.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: BlackBlade, aren't you LDS? (Sorry if I'm wrong about that.) Mormon doctrine is pretty much the above.* I'm not exactly sure where this is stated, but I think it is in either The Miracle of Forgiveness or in Jesus, the Christ, both of which are pretty much considered authoritative and are among the few books missionaries are allowed to read besides the "Standard Works" (i.e. the "Scriptures"). This was stated explicitly by the author (Either an LDS prophet or apostle) in response to the idea that the "fruit" was a euphemism and the sin was actually sexual.
Karl,
Thanks for clarifying many LDS theological points in this thread. However, you have this one backwards. Elder James E. Talmage (author of Jesus the Christ) emphatically rejects the rumor that their sin was sexual in nature. IIRC, he's argument on the matter was that upon Adam and Eve were married before the fall (Genesis 2:23-25), making a sexual transgression between them (as some suggest) impossible. He also gets pretty riled up at the suggestion
President Spencer W Kimball, author of Miracle of Forgiveness, doesn't make any claim that Adam's fall was due to sexual transgression, at least to my knowledge.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you are the first person on earth of any religion I have ever encountered who actually tried to claim that the serpent in Eden was not Satan, or a tool possessed by Satan. Is it your contention then that the snake in Genesis three was nothing more than an ordinary snake? A snake that could talk? A snake that would imply that God is a liar, trying to keep from Eve something that is good?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, I don't understand why we don't need to believe in a literal snake, but we have to believe in a literal day.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, I think we have been over this before. God created the Sabbath at the end of Creation Week, when Adam and Eve were the only humans in existence (no Jews yet). See Genesis 2:2, 3.
Correct. And He did not command them to observe Shabbat.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And the fourth commandment specifically calls that day that God rested and set aside at the end of Creation week "the Sabbath." See Exodus 20:11.
The fourth commandment was given to us. Not to the entire world. Not to the descendents of Adam and Eve in their entirety, but to the subset that was there at Sinai.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The very first thing that God did at the end of Creation Week was demonstrate to man what should be done on the Sabbath by divine example--He rested.
He didn't "demonstrate" any such thing. He rested. Period. And then He commanded the Jews to do the same in commemoration of His having rested.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you wish to maintain that God created the world only for the Jews,
I never said any such thing. Of course He didn't.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you can claim that the Sabbath was only for the Jews. Otherwise your claim is invalid.
No, it's not. He gave the Torah to the Jews. Complete with a requirement to keep Shabbat. He didn't give that commandment to anyone else.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Lisa, a Bible is a Bible is a Bible.
Do tell. We don't count your books as part of the Bible. It doesn't mean just the Christian Bible. Maybe when you're in church or in your living room it can mean that, but if you use it that way here, I'll correct you.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Your yelling to the contrary is NOT going to change anyone's mind. So . . . either show some respect and get used other people's beliefs or shut up!
No. You're rude, and you're offensive, but most of all, you're wrong. Though coming from someone who wants to establish the US as a theocracy, I'm not too surprised.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: We get you have different ideas of religious things. That is pretty obvious. However, this is not the place to force your ideas of things on anyone (or mine either).
If Ron calling original sin "Bible doctrine" isn't forcing something on me, then me complaining about it isn't forcing anything on you. Get off your high horse.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: In fact, I believe you are close to breaking the rules of Hatrack, but that is never my call.
True enough. Because I think that you're the one who just broke them. You don't tell me to shut up.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, it was a literal snake, but possessed by Satan. When God addressed the serpent, it is obvious whom He was really addressing. Since part of the curse on the serpent later was that it would travel on its belly in the dust of the earth, apparently the serpent before the curse was somewhat different in form from snakes today. Many people believe that the serpent in Eden had wings. The winged serpent is a common motif in various ancient works of art and religious icons.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you are the first person on earth of any religion I have ever encountered who actually tried to claim that the serpent in Eden was not Satan, or a tool possessed by Satan.
Ron, you need to get out more.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Is it your contention then that the snake in Genesis three was nothing more than an ordinary snake? A snake that could talk?
Yep. Do you have a problem with a donkey that can talk?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A snake that would imply that God is a liar,
Heh. You claiming that I think God is a liar is kind of ironic, don't you think? In any case, it doesn't follow.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: trying to keep from Eve something that is good?
The snake lied. Not God. And the snake was punished for it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why would God punish the poor snake and its descendents for being possessed? Also not the act of a just God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Incidentally, I have a training class for the next 4.5 hours, but I want to make something clear to Occasional. You want me to just ignore it when someone misuses the word Bible the way Ron did. Even though it offends me. So clearly, you think that ignoring something that offends you is a reasonable way of dealing with it. In that case, what you want to do is ignore me when I object. Because I don't consider that a reasonable way of dealing with something offensive. But you clearly do.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
And Ron, since this is something you seem not to realize, you should know that the concept of "Satan" as an adversary of God is also a Christian concept. We consider such a concept to be contrary to monotheism. The fact that you don't actually worship him doesn't mean he isn't part of the Christian pantheon.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
And for that matter, are Jews the only human beings that God regards as His children? The witness of the ENTIRE Bible is that God choose the Jews to serve Him as a means for reaching all humanity with His grace. That was the blessing God pronounced on Abraham: "and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)
Lisa, if you try to keep any blessing of God to yourselves as Jews, then you are violating God's purpose for your people, and rejecting the blessing of Abraham. If I accept the blessing of Abraham, and you do not, then I am a better Jew than you are--a real Jew in a spiritual sense. The son who does the father's will is the truer son than the one who just pays lip service.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Except we don't (and some of us don't necessarily think of Satan as literal either) consider Satan a god. Or god-like. Satan would be a created being like an angel. I don't think angels are a problem with monotheism, are they?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, I am trying to ask and answer question without making attacks. I don't always succeed, but I do try. Could you try as well. Telling someone that you are a better adherent of their religion than they are strikes me as over the line.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
He didn't it with Adam and Eve as His audience any more than He created Adam and Eve with dogs and cats as His audience.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And for that matter, are Jews the only human beings that God regards as His children?
No, and again, I never said that. But He gave those laws to the Children of Israel; not to all of God's children.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The witness of the ENTIRE Bible is that God choose the Jews to serve Him as a means for reaching all humanity with His grace. That was the blessing God pronounced on Abraham: "and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Genesis 26:4)
Indeed. But that doesn't mean that the laws He commanded us are applicable to you.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, if you try to keep any blessing of God to yourselves as Jews,
You're mixing things, here. The laws are the laws. If you want to identify everything God gave us as a "blessing" in that way, fine, but God didn't. It's very simple. God commanded all people to observe certain laws. He gave us additional ones. Lots of them.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you are violating God's purpose for your people, and rejecting the blessing of Abraham.
Feh. You don't get to decide that; God does. And did.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If I accept the blessing of Abraham, and you do not, then I am a better Jew than you are--a real Jew in a spiritual sense.
No, Ron. You aren't a Jew in any sense. You don't get to say what God intended; you have to listen to what He said. Seems to me I heard you saying that yourself at the top of this page. You should listen to yourself more.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The son who does the father's will is the truer son than the one who just pays lip service.
We don't pay lip service. But the son who does what His father says is a truer son than the son who is jealous and tries to usurp his brother's perogatives.
I'm in the middle of rereading Journeyman Alvin right now, and I swear, the best analogy that I can come up with is us as Alvin and you (and Christians who think the way you do) as Calvin.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kate, I pretty much figured that you wouldn't think of him as literal in the way that Ron does. But would you say that's the establishment view?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Revelation 12:9 explicitly tells us that the Serpent, also called the Dragon, is Satan, and that he was cast down to earth, and "his angels were cast down with him."
Satan is an angel. In speaking of the King of Tyre, God addresses Satan who was behind the king of Tyre: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee." (Ezekiel 28:13-15)
Note that Lucifer was originally one of the anointed covering cherubs. The Ark of the Covenant was made with two cherubim with wings outstretched, bowing reverently over what Martin Luther called "the mercy seat." This was a representation of the reality that exists in the temple of God in heaven. Originally, Lucifer and Michael were the covering cherubs, closest to the very glory of God. When Lucifer fell, his place was taken by Gabriel.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Except we don't (and some of us don't necessarily think of Satan as literal either) consider Satan a god. Or god-like. Satan would be a created being like an angel. I don't think angels are a problem with monotheism, are they?
I shouldn't think so. Though I do in fact believe in an entity named Lucifer who has the title of Satan as that is the role he has chosen to fill.
Bao: Thanks for clarifying that for Karl for me, I was just about to say the same thing.
I just feel like people can be quite foolish in regards to the Bible. People get so bent out of shape about discussions of evolution and creationism, but understanding those things to the letter are not required for salvation, and thats the goad of Christianity, to save everyone who would be saved.
My grandfather used to drive me nuts because I considered him to be a smart man and I would always ask him questions like this, "If Adam was the first man, how come there are fossils of men like creatures who are far older then Adam?" "What is the point of the other planets in our solar system? Nobody lives on them, nobody could live on them."
He would always respond with, "It has not bearing on my salvation so I don't worry about it."
Now I am one of the first to raise eyebrows when somebody says, "As long as you believe Jesus is your Lord and savior you will be saved."
Well yes while technically true, the sheer magnitude of that statement is lost on alot of people. Truly believing that statement obligates us to reach for an incredibly high ideal, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father who is in heaven is perfect."
I honestly doubt God will ever tell anybody, "What you had trouble understanding how the world could have been created in X amount of time? Off to hell with you!"
I am fine with people referring to Biblical passages as a means to give credence to their arguments but it annoys me when people say, "It must mean this, only a bad person would believe otherwise."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:However, you have this one backwards.
BQT, I don't think so, unless I'm misunderstanding you. My whole point was that they didn't think the sin was sexual and were emphasizing that it was a literal fruit. In fact, in the quote I'm remembering, (which may not be in the books I was thinking of as it's been over 10 years since I read either of them) the sin was likened to a Word of Wisdom violation rather than a sexual sin.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lisa, there is a difference between "I believe as a Jew" and "you are all WRONG you freeking Gentiles!" Might as well take out swords, bombs, and knives and start fighting each other. Same attitudes.
KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you are very exclusive. I get the picture of a group of us walking past a walled enclosure in heaven, and an angel telling us to walk softly and not say anything, because the Jews inside the wall think they are the only ones there in God's heaven.
Wait until you find out about God's children on other worlds!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Bao: Thanks for clarifying that for Karl for me, I was just about to say the same thing.
What was clarified? From my point of view he said "you have it backwards" then reiterated my very point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lisa, I think the traditional view for us is that Satan is created like an angel is created. We don't worry overmuch about the "bling".
BB, I think I would like your Grandfather. It reminds me of a story that one of my favorite theologians tells about a boy who lived in a poor village. One day a schoolteacher came to the village. Among the things he told his pupils was that the world was round rather than flat. This was astonishing and fearful news for the young students. Many of them refused to believe it after all, they could see that the world was flat. Distraught, the young boy ran home to his grandmother. Grandmother, he said, what are we going to do? Teacher says that the world is round!
Well, said the unflappable grandmother, Can you still love?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Lisa, be reasonable. Why did the omnipotent Creator "rest" on the seventh day of Creation Week, with Adam and Eve as His audience, unless he was demonstrating something to them? Does God do things that are pointless?
Yes, evidently it does. I would suggest that, to a reasonable person, this implies a made-up god.
Edit: In other news, I am extremely amused to see one fundie telling another fundie that "No, that's what it literally and exactly says!" This is, indeed, precisely the point that should tell all Creationists that their insistence on a literal interpretation is rather silly; when even people who agree on that premise can't agree on what the literal interpretation is, isn't it time to reconsider?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Thinking about rivka's assertion that American Christians don't read the Old Testament scriptures in their original language ringing truer and truer.
One of the best christian thinkers I ever met was well-versed in Hebrew and didn't believe that the serpent in the garden was Satan and, in fact, seriously doubts the existance of the person.
This is in serious conflict to modern American Christian teachings, but Christians in America are very tied to traditional interpretations of the scriptures- even if they protest otherwise. It's the ever-present problem of applying what you THINK the scripture is saying rather than trying to figure out what the original author meant in the context of history and culture.
I've found that reading Lisa's posts in this thread have really made me think about what it is I read in the bible and what it means. It definitely also makes me want to start learning Ancient Hebrew so I have a clue as to what the original author meant.
Blah blah blah. I'm not very good at these kinds of discussions, but that was my observation, so I thought I'd share.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Lisa scares me. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ron, I have a legitimate question for you. Not baiting, because clearly you have thought out your beliefs extensively.
Am I correct in assuming that your "days" of the "creation week" aren't 24-hour days as we know them? If not, then wasn't God's resting day also a very long time? Isn't there then no longer a direct correlation between God's "long period" of rest and the specific Sabbath? It seems like there is a world of room to believe the text written by the finger of God is metaphorical rather than literal. Otherwise, why don't we only observe the Sabbath every 6000 years and for 1000 years at a time?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey, Primal, be careful about lumping all American Christians together. "American Christian Teachings" are so varied that the term has very little meaning. Not believing the serpent in the garden is hardly a problem for this particular American Christian - as has already been demonstrated in this thread.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
PC - "This is in serious conflict to modern American Christian teachings, but Christians in America are very tied to traditional interpretations of the scriptures- even if they protest otherwise."
I would agree with you, to a point. First, the way Lisa argues is far less even-tempered than what you have said. She doesn't make me think. She makes me angry. As for the "traditional interpretation," you have to understand that Christians get their ideas of Old Testament from the New Testament. From their vantage point, they are both Scripture and therefore equally as relevant to the questions. Now there are traditional interpretations that are still outside both Testaments, but that is a whole different discussion than what is going on here.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sorry for the confusion Karl.
I am absolutely positive that General Authorities have said explicitly that "partaking the fruit" is a metaphor, and no fruit was consumed. But that it was certainly NOT a euphanism for sex as God himself had married Adam to Eve as well as commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Lisa scares me.
You should see me first thing in the morning...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, I would also ask you to refrain from making generalizations about how Christians view Scripture.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmbboots, what is that in reference to?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: kmbboots, what is that in reference to?
quote:As for the "traditional interpretation," you have to understand that Christians get their ideas of Old Testament from the New Testament. From their vantage point, they are both Scripture and therefore equally as relevant to the questions.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Well, they do. Maybe not everything, but most of the things we are discussing here.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Sorry Karl, looks like it's backwards day for me On reading your post I thought you were saying that Mormons did believe it was a sexual transgression. Sorry about that.
Instead of my clarification, I should just put a big +1 to what you said.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:KarlE, I think you were ambiguous, but I do think Q misunderstood.
Perhaps. It's happened before. But I think I was clear in context of the post to which I was responding. Of course, BlackBlade's agreement with BQT's "correction" is evidence to the contrary.
My ONLY point here, though, is that Mormons believe the fruit was literal. Adam ate something forbidden and thus brought about the fall.
Sorry Karl, looks like it's backwards day for me On reading your post I thought you were saying that Mormons did believe it was a sexual transgression. Sorry about that.
Instead of my clarification, I should just put a big +1 to what you said.
But see he also thought that Mormons believe it was DEFINATELY fruit that was eaten.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, they do. Maybe not everything, but most of the things we are discussing here.
Until this thread I would have said that Christians believe that God is omnipotent and that Jesus is divine. I would have been wrong. I think there are enough variations that we need to be pretty careful about "Christians believe" statements.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Well, they do. Maybe not everything, but most of the things we are discussing here.
Until this thread I would have said that Christians believe that God is omnipotent and that Jesus is divine. I would have been wrong. I think there are enough variations that we need to be pretty careful about "Christians believe" statements.
Oh I don't think anybody made the argument as a Christian that Jesus wasn't divine here.
But I agree with you its typically not safe to try to generalize what EVERY Christian thinks.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But see he also thought that Mormons believe it was DEFINATELY fruit that was eaten.
I still do, unless you can provide a direct quote to the contrary. (Or more specifically I will say I still believe it is Mormon doctrine, regardless of what individual Mormons do or do not believe). I was devoutly Mormon for 25 years and I am sure of what I read, though I am not 100 percent sure it was a doctrinal pronouncement. It was from a church authority whether or not he was acting as such at the time. I'll see if I can find the quote, but all my LDS books that I haven't given away are in storage. I might be able to find something online, though.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I have to back Karl up on this one, because I remember the same thing. It may have been in the Brigham Young manual a few years back or an older Talmage book or something, but I remember a General Authority quote that said that the fruit was literal, and caused a chemical change in the bodies of Adam and Eve as they ate. It seemed more of an opinion than a matter of doctrine though, as I've heard other authorities make comments that imply the opposite.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am positive that Talmage in The Articles of Faith quoted himself at a general conference talk where he said no fruit was involved. I know Mormon Doctrine says the same thing, but Ill try to find the quotation from Talmage.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Great, now you have me involved in an online LDS quasi-scripture chase. Drat!
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
As I expected my post earlier this day only led to confusion. Fortunately not too much, though. Perhaps it even went unnoticed by everybody but mr. Scopatz. My error was that I wasn't being specific enough. So here's my attempt at a correction.
Since I only numbered the commandment I was referring to, instead of actually typing it out, I should have expected a reaction along those lines. This is helped along by the fact that the passage in the bible that describes the ten commandments actually contains fourteen statements in an imperative form. To be more specific, I was referring to the one about not having a 'graven image' of God. Earlier on in this thread the importance of interpretation was stipulated. I whole-heartedly agree with this. So just for kicks I'm gonna submit to you three possible interpretations of said commandment. (My apologies if my paraphrases seem somewhat common.)
1. It is not allowed to make any graven images of God, so you all keep your chisels away from stone or wood. (Which is the most narrow interpretation I can come up with.) 2. It is not allowed to make any images of God in any medium. (Letting the reins go a bit there) 3. It is not allowed to let your mental definition of the idea of God become too restricted.
Now, obviously I try to adhere to the third interpretation. I realise that my interpretation of the text hinges on the word graven, which I personally take to be used metaphorically. And so, according to my way of thinking anybody who at the mentioning of the word God automatically pictures some huge guy on a cloud is breaking that commandment.
Now, why do I consider this to be the first commandment when the partitioning and/or sequence of the commandments is still a point of debate? Because the two statements that precede it aren't commandments but actually an introduction (hello, my name is...) and the stipulation that this is to be a monotheistic religion. Which makes the graven image thingy the first actual commandment.
I sincerely apologise if my rambling have offended anyone, for that wasn't my intention. Also my apologies for interrupting an ongoing discussion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Because Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Lord sent them out of the Garden of Eden into the world as we now know it. Their physical condition changed as a result of their eating the forbidden fruit. As God had promised, they became mortal. They were able to have children. They and their children would experience sickness, pain, and physical death.
While this isn't an unambiguous reference, it is unlikely to me that the fruit in this explanation is metaphorical. No mention in this or other articles I just read mention a metaphorical nature in the fruit.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Here's one by Talmage, in General Conference in 1913 and also quoted in Jesus the Christ:
quote: He was warned that, if he did [partake of the fruit], his body would lose the power which it then held of living for ever, and that he would become subject to death. Here let me say that therein consisted the fallthe eating of things unfit, the taking into the body of the things that made of that body a thing of earth.
And one by Joseph Fielding Smith:
quote: "Adam [and, by extension, all of the animal creation] had no blood in his veins before the fall. Blood is the life of the mortal body." After Adam partook of the forbidden fruit, blood became "the life-giving fluid in Adam's body, and was inherited by his posterity. Blood was not only the life of the mortal body, but also contained in it the seeds of death which bring the mortal body to its end. Previously the life force in Adam's body, which is likewise the sustaining power in every immortal body, was the spirit." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Man: His Origin and Destiny (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954), pp. 362, 376-77.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
BQT, that first quote is the one I was (albeit poorly) remembering.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I know that Talmage also said later on that everything from the rib, dust, and fruit were tokens or symbols meant to represent other things. However, perhaps some of these things were literal as well as having symbolic meaning? It's certainly not unprecedented in scripture.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
*Bows head in shame* I may be beaten in this regard.
Pretty surprised that I could confuse Talmages views so badly. I can remember McConkie saying it was metaphorical and its found in Mormon Doctrine, but I was sure he cited somebody else when he said it.
I already knew about the blood effect of the forbidden fruit, but I am still pretty sure its not accepted doctrine that it was actualy fruit that caused the change. But again I could be wrong, its pretty clear today I am off my rocker Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Oh I don't think you did confuse his views badly BB. From what I've read, Talmage did view many things from a metamorphic standpoint, including much of the Creation story (see my above post). It was more Fielding Smith and McConkie that were big into the literal explanations.
I think the Creation is one of those things where the details are not really nailed down into hard doctrine at this point. The fact that the Creation story is currently used so symbolically in certain forms of LDS worship further muddies the water.
Edit: Added the necessary negative. Thanks KoM.
[ December 06, 2006, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
From context, it seems to me that you are missing a 'not' in that post, BQT.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
The good thing about being a Christian-biblical-literalist is that you have to accept Ecclesiastes as holy writ... and that's some majorly cool black humor!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:From what I've read, Talmage did view many things from a metamorphic standpoint,
Part of the confusion could be a slightly different use of the word metaphor. Or more often, rather than calling something a metaphor in discussions of scripture they call something a 'type' (see dictionary.com "type" definition 12.) In these cases "type" usually referred to something literal in the past that served as foreshadowing of something to come. Many Christians believe that Moses raising the brass serpent in the desert, which the stricken had to look to in order to be saved from poisoning was a "type", symbolizing the future Christ being raised up and only through whom mankind could receive salvation. The raising of the brass serpent in this case would still be considered a literal event even though it was also a "metaphor" for the future atonement.
It's very likely that what you read, BlackBlade, was a case of discussing the literal fruit in the Garden of Eden as a "type" of something to come in the future. I've heard something similar in the context of the physical fall being a type, mirroring the spiritual fall all men are supposedly subject to.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks for your post Karl. That described the concept I was trying to get across with my awkwardly phrased "...tokens or symbols meant to represent other things. However, perhaps some of these things were literal as well as having symbolic meaning?" Types is exactly the word I should have used.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
KarlEd, I just now came back on line today, and noticed your question. I believe the days of Creation Week were literal days. There is nothing figurative about them. The text very specifically says, for each day, "the evening and the morning were the ... day." Days by Hebrew reckoning are from sunset to sunset. The dark portion is counted first, then the light portion. Evening-morning.
If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
God created light before He created plants. The fact that He created the sun and moon later doesn't have anything to do with that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ron, thank you for answering my question. I have talked with several YECists who in fact do believe that the "days" in the Genesis account of creation are figurative rather than literal. I'm certainly not trying to defend the idea, just to see if you were a holder of it. I couldn't tell from those posts of yours which I have read.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
To counter this, how could one even speak of evening and morning if there is no sun or moon?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
even in modern times it is not uncommon to say
On morning of the Qing Dynasty. Also you are assuming that Moses was using time as measure by us. Isn't it just as possible that God related the events to him and he wrote it down as he heard it? Does God take time by our sun? Seems more unlikely then otherwise if you ask me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles:
quote:If the days of Creation Week were long periods of time, then how could the plants created on the third day (Gen. 1:11-13) survive until on the fourth day "God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night...." (Gen. 1:16)?
To counter this, how could one even speak of evening and morning if there is no sun or moon?
Heh. Very nice.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
David and Lisa, it is one thing to have light, but it is another thing to have the light reach the surface where the plants are, bright enough to sustain photosynthesis. Remember "the waters above the expanse"? If the lights that make day and night only became visible on the fourth day, then perhaps there was an impenetrable cloud cover until God cleared things out on the fourth day. Some creationist scientists have speculated that with the "waters above the expanse," you could not actually see the globe of the sun and moon, only a large bright area. The lesser light was not the moon, but translucence from the sun conducted optically around to the night side of the planet by the waters above the explanse. They say it should have been a pearly glow, like a global night light. You could only see the stars in a small circle near the poles (if at all). Some of the things said in Genesis one are stated from the viewpoint of us people who live after the Flood changed things. We can see the stars, so of course the Genesis account has to mention the stars. But I suspect that before the Flood, the stars were not visible (except perhaps in thin circlar areas near the poles).
I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week. The sun was there already, along with the watery formless void of the earth, and the rest of the universe. But as I said before I think the rest of the universe is only about 10.000 to 12,000 years old. God only created earth's biosphere (and arranged the atmosphere and waters above the expanse) during Creation Week. So I do not stand with the YEYU creationists who hold that the entire universe was created during Creation Week. But I am closer to their view than to the views of people who believe in long ages involving millions or billions of years being plugged in at any point.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Some creationist scientists
What a cute oxymoron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week.
You certainly do pick and choose when it comes to taking the Bible literally. It doesn't say "And God allowed the light of the sun (which had been around since the first day) to penetrate". It says that God created the lights.
Note, by the way, that despite the limitations of English, the word "light" as in "let there be light" and the word "light" as in "the two great lights" are not the same word in the original Hebrew. The former is "ohr", which means light itself. The latter is "me'or", which means something that gives off light.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Some of the things said in Genesis one are stated from the viewpoint of us people who live after the Flood changed things.
Ah so. But none of it is written from the viewpoint of people who, oh I dunno, don't know radiocarbon dating from their elbow? As Lisa says, you surely do pick and choose what things you're going to consider. This isn't just twisting science around to match your preconception, now you're twisting the Bible around to boot!
[ December 07, 2006, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:I do not believe the sun was created during Creation Week. I think its light was not able to reach the surface of the earth until the fourth day of Creation Week.
So light moved really slowly back then, huh?
I respect your right to believe this confused mess of cosmogony, Ron, but I can promise you'll have very few converts from among more empirical non-believers...
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"I respect your right to believe this confused mess of cosmogony"
No, you don't respect his right, or you wouldn't have said such a snarky comment. That has nothing to do with my belief in what he says. I don't. However, having respect means at least showing respect.
By the way kmbboots, I wrote some answers to a few of your questions from earlier.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think Ron is totally off base here, David, but you're misreading him. He thinks the light wasn't able to reach the surface because of cloud cover; not that it was moving slowly.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa there are thousands of qualified scientists with PhDs and everything, who are creationists, because they believe that the creationist explanation fits all the observed evidence best, leaving fewer unanswered questions than evolution and uniformitarianism leave. As I have mentioned before, one of the most representative sites presenting the views and research of creationist scientists is The Creation Research Society Quarterly.
An example of the scientific investigation they do is when Dr. Russell Humphries and some colleagues contracted with a professional lab to analyze the amount of helium still trapped in granitic zirconium, and measure the rate at which it is slowly diffusing out of the rock. In response to critics, they went back and did this again at low temperatures. The results confirmed their earlier conclusion that the amount of helium still trapped in the rock indicates a relative young age, only six to ten thousand years. Since this test does not require any prior assumptions about the rate of radioactive decay always being constant, as do all conventional age testing methods involving ratios of radiogenic elements, this test is more definitive. It actually calls into direct question the assumptions uniformitarians make about the constancy of radioactive decay rates in the past. Their measurements prove the assumptions made by uniformitarians are wrong.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Response to critics? Would you care to link me to what he did in response to one of the much bigger criticisms, that he took measurements in a vacuum (which inside the ground certainly is not, and pressure has a huge effect on diffusion rates)?
edit: btw, Lisa's a creationist herself, so I find your argument hilarious for that reason as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, How do you reconcile the different accounts in Genesis? Things are not in the same order.
Also, speaking of the flood, is that literal as well - Noah and two of every animal etc.? How would that work?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kate, it was before most of the animals had evolved. <grin> Basically, you had Noah and two paramecia.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
YEC is good defense but lousy offense.
What I mean by that is that all the explanations of how Genesis is compatible with observable phenomenon is useful in stopping Christians from surrendering their faith to Secular Evangelists.
It is not, however, a very useful thing in converting Secularists or people of other faiths to accept Christianity.
This is what is happening here. The logic and explanations of the faithful basically rely on what Farm Girl said: "I believe it is so." Those without faith can not change her mind, and she can not make someone else have that same faith.
Now I don't like the Creationists who are so pushy in demanding that their "faith" be accepted as science by everyone. You are not going to convert anyone by debating the nature of Sun and Light and Clouds as described in the Bible. It seems a bit arrogant that they demand, just so their defense is a bit stronger, that we must accept as science what they accept on faith.
But I find equally if not more unacceptable those who seek to destroy anothers faith simply because they can. Those who demand that others surrender faith in exchange for science because they have had bad experiences with faith, or do not understand it. Especially I find hypocritical people proclaiming their love of science who ridicule people of faith, because the people of science can not understand that faith. Lack of understanding should be the one thing that draws people of science into investigating faith, not ridiculing it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Kate, it was before most of the animals had evolved. <grin> Basically, you had Noah and two paramecia.
Plenty of room, then!
Dan, about this:
quote: What I mean by that is that all the explanations of how Genesis is compatible with observable phenomenon is useful in stopping Christians from surrendering their faith to Secular Evangelists.
I think that the kind of Christianity that focuses on stuff like Creationism etc. is likely to encourage Christians to become atheists. Or at least to turn away people who are looking for faith but who are not willing to abandon reason.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan_Raven, what I do not like is when people insist you have to ignore reason and empirical science and in essence be some kind of fool to have faith in the Biblical account of origins. Creationism requires no more faith than does evolution and uniformitarianism. Uniformitarians believe that in the beginning was nothing, and then suddenly nothing exploded. Evolutionists have to believe that meaningful DNA sequences in the enormous complexity necessary to produce significant new characteristics of an organism can be written by natural processes operating by random chance. When you gain a really realistic appreciation of the immense odds against such a thing happening, you know it is flatly impossible. In the face of this, evolutionist have to believe that something utterly impossible happens routinely. That is beyond faith; it is presumption.
By way of contrast, how much of a logical leap is it to consider that intelligently designed genomes must have been designed by Intelligence?
The whole scientific method is based solely in faith--faith that natural laws will not spontaneously change. As a simple historical fact, the scientific method was originally devised by creationists, hundreds of years ago when all scientists were creationists. The reason why they could devise the scientific method with its predictions of experimental repeatability, is that they believed that the Creator created an orderly universe, and He maintains His creation. Anyone who uses the scientific method to "prove" anything, is relying upon this same faith, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not.
True science is only to be found in creationism, because creationism is the truth. This is the way the earth and universe actually did originate. There can be no science apart from truth. The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, everyone will know this is so. Truth cannot be concealed and suppressed and misrepresented forever.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But I find equally if not more unacceptable those who seek to destroy another's faith simply because they can. Those who demand that others surrender faith in exchange for science because they have had bad experiences with faith, or do not understand it.
It doesn't occur to you that some people might have a fondness for truth, and get annoyed when others are deliberately obtuse? A faith based on outright lies deserves no respect.
quote:When you gain a really realistic appreciation of the immense odds against such a thing happening, you know it is flatly impossible.
Not if you do the calculations correctly, without the conceptual errors that creationists spout. The odds calculations that your average creationist site puts up are based on total miscomprehensions of how the evolutionary process actually works, to the point of verging on lying.
quote:The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms. Sooner or later, everyone will know this is so. Truth cannot be concealed and suppressed and misrepresented forever.
Quite right, though the various fundie churches have been having a good run at it. And, by the way, I am a scientist, and I'm here to tell you that you are spouting utter crap.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The whole scientific method is based solely in faith--faith that natural laws will not spontaneously change. As a simple historical fact, the scientific method was originally devised by creationists, hundreds of years ago when all scientists were creationists. The reason why they could devise the scientific method with its predictions of experimental repeatability, is that they believed that the Creator created an orderly universe, and He maintains His creation.
This actually raises an interesting historical issue.
17th century physics was dominated by two figures: Descartes and Galileo. Each had a different approach to what was then called "natural philosophy." Descartes sought to derive truths about space, time and matter from our knowledge of God's divine nature. Galileo, on the other hand, began with empirically verifiable facts such as the behavior of falling objects, and tried to derive from these the nature of matter.
For a while it was quite unclear which method was the right one -- until Newton. Newton chose Galileo's method, created from it the first truly successful theory of motion, and science has proceeded thus ever since.
All of this points to a flaw in Mr. Lambert's analysis. Obviously science does rest on the assumption of an orderly universe, but that needn't involve God. In fact, the method of doing science by appeal to God's plan was tried, and rejected, in physics 300 years ago.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Destineer, you are begging the issue. Galileo still had to believe that there were "empirically verifiable facts" because there is a Creator who maintains the order of His universe. Otherwise, neither he nor Newton could have any confidence that the gravitational constant might change the next moment, and the whole world and universe fly apart. The universe does not police itself, unless you wish to posit that the universe has a mind. In which case you might as well believe in God.
And Sir Isaac Newton, by the way, was a devout Christian, who wrote many articles on religion, including commentaries on the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
Bringing up Descartes is a false issue. No one is talking about taking his approach. And just because Galilieo was opposed by some clergy in the Catholic church does not mean that he was unreligious in his approach to science. Any belief in the orderliness and predicatability and repeatability of the universe requires inescapably faith in a Creator who maintains the universe. There is simply no way to get around it, though I am sure you will keep trying.
King of Men, you do not have enough authority to persuade me that I should believe you are correct in what you say, when I know better. So I suggest you keep to the evidence, and to logical argument, and not presume to pontificate about how you are a real scientist and are qualified by that to call me names. How good a disciple of science are you really, when you show such poor intellectual discipline?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Any belief in the orderliness and predicatability and repeatability of the universe requires inescapably faith in a Creator who maintains the universe.
Are you saying that it's self-contradictory to believe that the universe will behave uniformly and yet that there is no God?
I don't remember that from any of my logic textbooks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that he is saying (and I would agree) that both beliefs - the belief in God and the belief that the universe obeys certain laws and will behave uniformly - require faith in something ultimately unprovable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:So I suggest you keep to the evidence, and to logical argument, and not presume to pontificate about how you are a real scientist and are qualified by that to call me names.
I was not calling you names. I was calling you out on calling me names; to wit, you called me dishonest:
quote:The term "evolutionist scientist" is the real contradiction in terms.
This is nothing but an attack on my integrity.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I must have said something right, both sides shot at me.
quote:Dan_Raven, what I do not like is when people insist you have to ignore reason and empirical science and in essence be some kind of fool to have faith in the Biblical account of origins.
I didn't say you had to be a fool, or even a non-scientist. I said that science based on faith will not attact others to your faith. Using a spin on science to attract or detract from ones faith is not good for Science.
Ron, believing in the orderly nature of the universe, or even in a God that creates such orderliness does not equate to believing in YEC, Christ, or the Bible. I find the argument "Evolution is wrong so the Bible is right" to be a bit short on the logic.
Allah, God, or a dream of Vishnu could also be the cause of our creation, as could something that we don't have quatified as a religion at the moment.
quote:It doesn't occur to you that some people might have a fondness for truth, and get annoyed when others are deliberately obtuse? A faith based on outright lies deserves no respect.
Yes it did occur to me. That is why I stipulated that I got mad not at people defending truth, but people who just liked to attack others faiths. A fondness for truth is a good thing. An overt fondness for what you think is truth is not. Lieing and bearing false witness, even in the name of God and Truth and saving souls, minds, future generations, etc -- falsifying the evidence for a worthy cause is not a worthy, honest, holy, or scientific thing to do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree with most of what you say, Dan. There go your dreams of being right.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Lieing and bearing false witness, even in the name of God and Truth and saving souls, minds, future generations, etc -- falsifying the evidence for a worthy cause is not a worthy, honest, holy, or scientific thing to do.
It isn't quite clear to me: Are you accusing me of doing any of these? If so, could you please point to where?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Galileo still had to believe that there were "empirically verifiable facts" because there is a Creator who maintains the order of His universe. Otherwise, neither he nor Newton could have any confidence that the gravitational constant might change the next moment, and the whole world and universe fly apart.
I think that the fact that the universe has not yet flown apart is an empirically verifiable fact, and every day it does not fly apart bolsters the theory that the laws of physics, as observed in nature, are stable.
We don't have to assume the existence of God in order to assume, for the sake of argument, that something we have verified again and again in experiment is stable enough that we can take it for granted as we move forward. Especially if we continue to test our initial discoveries to refine them and verify that they are not changing.
I believe in God, and in a very specific religion, but I also think that the scientific method is an excellent means of establishing a common base of scientific knowledge that does not depend on religious faith a force which, while powerful, pushes different people in such widely disparate directions that to use it as a foundation for science would be to stop science in its tracks.
I, for one, am very glad that our shared base of knowledge is not founded on religion because for one thing, it wouldn't be MY religion In America, the most dominant religion, at least from my experience, is the modern Born-Again wave of Protestant Christianity. I have some serious, fundamental disagreements with Born-Again philosophy. Could I be satisfied with a version of "science" founded on Born-Again principles? No, I seriously doubt it.
Much better to have a system that puts all of our subjective faith-based beliefs aside, and relies instead on what we can observe.
Sure, for the sake of making progress, we have to make a few assumptions here and there ... but even then, we're always free to go back and question old assertions and refine our model of reality.
That process sounds far more attractive to me than the prospect of settling disagreements or discrepancies in the evidence with an old-fashioned Bible bash Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I am reminded of my inordinate fondness for both kmboots and the Puppy. Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The universe does not police itself
I think it is an equally valid argument that the universe is not policed by anything at all. The universe will continue to be the universe if humans manage to wipe themselves out or if humans go on to take over the entire solar system.
quote: This is what is happening here. The logic and explanations of the faithful basically rely on what Farm Girl said: "I believe it is so." Those without faith can not change her mind, and she can not make someone else have that same faith.
I agree. Deep down, I think that everyone, no matter how they argue or what they do, will still believe what they believed before an argument. When the topic cuts down to such basic spiritual (and when I say spiritual, I do not mean religious) beliefs that nothing will change someone's mind.
I've been reading along for awhile now, and see some people so adamant that their belief is the right belief that anyone who doesn't agree is beyond hope. I beleive that everyone has the right to believe in anything they want, as long as that believe does not interfere with how I live my life. When policy and social norms are based on a certain basic belief, one belief is given power over another. I believe that that is wrong.
Belief has a tremendous ability to cloud logic. When evidence arises that goes against someone's belief, they often find new justifications and rearrange their beliefs, but they still believe in the same thing. There gets to be a point where there is so much evidence that these rearrangements are no longer possible, and people get angry.
I do not believe that there is a god policing this universe, but if I saw something like what happened in 'To All Things That Are in the Earth,' from the Intergalactic Medicine Show, I would try to justify why cherubs and angels were actually flying around. I would probably do what the protagonist did and continue to pursue my belief, regardless of the evidence that was before me. I hope that I would get to a point where I recognize that what I believed was wrong, and then change.
I can't remember where I heard this, but someone was accusing a government official of flip-flopping, but the official responded with something (I'm paraphrasing) like "When I get new information, I use it. What do you do with new information?"
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I believe in God, and in a very specific religion, but I also think that the scientific method is an excellent means of establishing a common base of scientific knowledge that does not depend on religious faith
Exactly as Newton or Galileo might've said. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
King of Men, I believe that anyone can see which one of us is offering reasoned argument, and which one is just offering invective and pompous self-authority.
Lisa: Shalom Shabbat!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I'm not sure if I will be able to word this correctly, but here's some of my reasoning for why the universe is stable.
Perhaps there were many universes before this one. Perhaps in those universes, the various constants were not random, and so nothing could develop. No laws of physics, no life, no anything. Eventually, those universes collapse. This continues happening until, eventually, a universe pops out whose variables remain constant. It doesn't matter how unlikely this is to happen, if a universe with constant variables occurs once every trillion trillion times, then the only time in which life will arise to question existance will be that trillionth trillionth time.
I have no problem beleiving in trillions of universes before this current one that were not stable.
In this view, there needs to be no god to create the universe. Forever how many times universes have existed without stability, this is the only time in which we are here to ask 'why? how?'
It seems ironic that in a thread questioning if the Earth is 6000 years old, I'm talking about universese that could have existed for trillions and trillions and trillions of years.
Ron, I find that quote much, much less satisfying. It requires me to accept the fact tha someone decided that I should exist. That we should exist. I always picture god existing, thinking "This is really boring and ugly. Maybe I'll create a universe. That'll liven things up a bit." I'm sorry if I'm being too crass.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
WW, I have heard this argument before, of course. It is about as hypothetical as you can get, but I will allow that if you posit infinite time for infinite universes to be tried with infinite variations, you might think that eventually, somehow, you might come across a stable universe. But still, what keeps it stable? You still have not answered this question! What is different about it from any other, that might have had the same laws and constants for a moment, and then spontaneously changed?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
The fact that the universal constants are stable right now does not mean that I do not expect them to always be. I honestly would not be suprized to hear a study saying that some constant (say gravity) was beginning to destabilize. I would think that it's a shame that our universe is collapsing or changing in a way that will probably kill us, but there was no reason why we should expect otherwise.
There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:King of Men, I believe that anyone can see which one of us is offering reasoned argument, and which one is just offering invective and pompous self-authority.
Yes, I think so too.
quote:You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
It answers nothing! It's just a way of saying "That's the way it is, deal!"
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
When I said:
quote: I've been reading along for awhile now, and see some people so adamant that their belief is the right belief that anyone who doesn't agree is beyond hope.
I was talking about things like this:
quote: You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why does the universe contain constants?
1) God made it that way as a by product of some other work he was doing. 2) Aliens from an advanced civilization got tired of the sloppiness and forced them that way. 3) The random physical forces that naturaly spawned the universe could only result in such constants. 4) God created it that way as described in the Bible. 5) God created it that way as described in the Koran. 6) Gods created it that way as described in the Greater Veda's. 7) The Force made it so. 8) God created it that way as described in the Silmarilion.
etc. etc. etc.
Hmmmm, may not be the only answer after all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But still, what keeps it stable?
Why not reverse that, and ask what would make it unstable? Why do you suppose instability is the default?
Seriously, the universe as observed appears to contain some stable constants. We don't know that those constants are actually stable, but they appear to have been stable for as long as we've been watching them. Maybe they don't change because they're constants; maybe they do change, but the rest of observed reality changes in such a way that their change is disguised.
The great thing about the scientific method is that it can address all of those possibilities. Religion, sadly, can speak to none of them.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Why does the universe contain constants?
1) God made it that way as a by product of some other work he was doing. 2) Aliens from an advanced civilization got tired of the sloppiness and forced them that way. 3) The random physical forces that naturaly spawned the universe could only result in such constants. 4) God created it that way as described in the Bible. 5) God created it that way as described in the Koran. 6) Gods created it that way as described in the Greater Veda's. 7) The Force made it so. 8) God created it that way as described in the Silmarilion.
etc. etc. etc.
Hmmmm, may not be the only answer after all.
You may as well go on to say 9) God created it as described in the Bible, with 1 angel watching 10) God created it as described in the Bible, with 2 angels watching 11) God created it as described in the Bible, with 3 angels watching ... infinity) God created it as described in the Koran, with 1 angel watching ... infinity) God created it as described in the Bible, as a by-product of other work he was doing, and this is AFAIK the same way he created it as described in the Koran, with 1 angel and 1 zogworf watching infinity) ...because he wanted Welsh corgis to exist infinity) ...because he wanted IMAX to exist ...
That is, the fact that you can embellish any explanation an infinite number of ways doesn't make it an infinite number of explanations.
You've only really got 3 explanations there: 1/4/5/6/7/8, 2, 3.
2 won't work: where did we get the aliens? Life implies a certain amount of order.
There's also, ah, 9: it's possible for a universe to have no constants, some, or many, and ours is lucky both in having them and having them in the tiny range that makes life possible. This becomes more plausible if we imagine an infinite, or finite but huge, number of universes. Rank speculation, but then this is Internet.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I honestly would not be suprized to hear a study saying that some constant (say gravity) was beginning to destabilize.
Gravity technically isn't a "constant" either, but I guess that's a separate discussion.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
It's like the band playing on as the Titanic sank.
No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly. No one can change Ron's mind, and likewise, he can't change ours.
The only thing I do want to say to Ron is this: you constantly cite the Bible as the be-all, end-all Book of Answers. But how do you know that particular book is the one to give you answers? Among hundreds of other books, holy and secular, offering explanations of 'why' and 'how,' why do you believe that one so firmly? And saying 'because it says so' is not a valid answer.
*sighs* What makes me frustrated isn't that people believe, it's that their believing can come at the expense of others. Too often, we become so convinced we're right that we try and make everyone else around us believe as we do, and in so doing, lose the importance of the message in the process. To go off on a slight tangent, how is trying to control who people marry and what they can teach any different from what dictatorial Islamic nations do? The way I see it, sadly, leaves me bitter: we don't kill those who disagree. We just deny them the privilege of being human.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
I actually find it extremely unsatisfying. A few of the reasons why are nicely explained in Hume's "Of Miracles."
Further, the thought that your belief in the uniformity of the universe depends on your belief in certain Biblical passages seems to put the cart before the horse. If nature weren't uniform, your memory of what Psalms 33:6 has to say wouldn't be very reliable, would it?
Seems like the opposite of what you're trying to claim is true: your belief that nature is uniform is needed to justify your belief in what the Bible says.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
Hitoshi, I have answered that before in some other threads. Bible prophecy is the proof of the unique authority and reliability of the Bible. That's Bible prophecy interpreted objectively, allowing the Bible to define its own terms and symbols--nothing subjective. It works. Only the True God can know the future--the entire range of the future, with the complete outline of major events.
Destineer, if the universe were not "uniform" (I think you mean stable), we wouldn't exist, would we?
King of Men, can you offer another answer that is logical? If you think you can, be my guest! My declaration was a philosophical challenge. Are you up to it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer, if the universe were not "uniform" (I think you mean stable), we wouldn't exist, would we?
I don't see why. Maybe we could exist in a non-"stable" universe, but only for very brief periods of time. I imagine that in a truly chaotic universe, with no constants or laws, people and things could pop in and out of existence at any time, for no reason at all.
Given this fact, my point is just that your belief in the stability (if that's your preferred word) of our universe isn't just a precondition of your scientific beliefs. It's also a precondition of your religious beliefs.
Your religious beliefs arise from sources (clergy and a book) that would be unreliable, or even impossible, if the world were unstable. So your religious beliefs can't justify your belief in the stability of the universe -- because they themselves assume the universe is stable.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
Sad? Not at all. It leads me to believe that since the universe doesn't care what happens, we humans can create our own beauty. Be it art, music, or just plain old living. That's why I look into the stars and see how much empty space is there, it makes me happy. Here on this planet, we have done so much. Beautiful things, horrible things, but things. (Hopefully, more beautiful that horrible things)
Fearful? No! Realistic, yes. I do not need to believe that there is a reason why we exist, or a creator who gives justification for our lives. We should come up with the ideas of justice, freedom and peace on our own, without some god making sure we do it.
Hopeless? Ironically, I feel the most hopeless when people start to kill people simply because of their religion. Hopeless when I see logic (that the earth has been around for billions of years) clouded by fuzzy pseudo-logic. Hopeless when the potential for good medicine is stiffled by religios texts (stem cell research).
Hopeless because humans themselves seem to be incapable of being moral creatures on their own. Why do we need some god to scare us into being good?
Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
Sorry to hop in here, without reading all the pages, but one thing:
Paraphrasing One person said "Constants, stable! God the answer!" And got the replies "Easily possible that other unstable universes existed, before ours" and "Maybe they aren't stable, we'll see"
In regards to the first reply, yes, of course, and there's all sorts of other reasonable explanations you could posit. But the thing is, there's no evidence, either way. The only "logical" position, is to say "We don't know why, and have no current prospect of ever knowing, any one of these explanations, including both scientific and religious, are equally possible"
Believing anything else, is exactly that, believing. It's a faith based position.
AW
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The only "logical" position, is to say "We don't know why, and have no current prospect of ever knowing, any one of these explanations, including both scientific and religious, are equally possible""
Well, no. Some explanations are more possible then others, given all the information.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, no. Some explanations are more possible then others, given all the information.
Well, no. Given all the information, only one explanation will be possible.
Given all the information we know, some are more possible than others. The problem, of course, is agreeing on what's known.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly.
quote: This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question.
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
I think that this 10 page thread has boiled down to peoples' beliefs that are not going to change. It is unfortunate, but I don't think anything productive can come from further debate.
(Also, I have finals, and really should be studying for those.) Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But if you admit that the universe is stable, you face the question why is it stable? Why do not all the various constants randomnly vary all the time? What is to keep them from changing? Why should the universe and its laws and constants remain stable? Saying that the universe seems to be stable and that is the end of it, is really just opting not to think about it.
Perhaps, but no one is saying "that's the end of it" except you. Well, you're saying "The answer is 'God' and that's the end of it." You are doing exactly what you are railing against here.
quote:How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
I don't find it satisfying at all. It's still just an unsupported assertion made by the scientifically ignorant thousands of years ago.
quote:You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
No, it answers nothing. It takes whatever the answer actually is and calls that variable "god" without giving any insight into what that variable actually might be. Instead of being the only answer possible, you've provided a non-answer and pretended to have arrived at something profound.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: No one is ever going to change their mind about this, and trying to convince people that they're "wrong" is altogether silly.
quote: This is how humans are: We question all our beliefs, except for the ones we really believe, and those we never think to question.
-Orson Scott Card, Speaker for the Dead
I think that this 10 page thread has boiled down to peoples' beliefs that are not going to change. It is unfortunate, but I don't think anything productive can come from further debate.
(Also, I have finals, and really should be studying for those.)
Hey, someone paid attention to my post! I feel somewhat less n00by. But yeah, at this point, further discussion is irrelevant, as it will only produce the three things all debates create: resentment, denial, and pain.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Hey, someone paid attention to my post! I feel somewhat less n00by. But yeah, at this point, further discussion is irrelevant, as it will only produce the three things all debates create: resentment, denial, and pain.
All debates do not create this, at least not in all participants and/or observers. Resentment and denial are personal issues each participant has to deal with not only in debate but also in life. While I feel for those who are unsuccessful in dealing with these issues, it's ludicrous to expect others to stop thinking and persuading simply to spare their feelings. If they don't like it, they can stop clicking and reading.
As for pain, well, sometimes pain is a good thing.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Something's been bothering about this whole debate, and I finally know what it is. Ron et al. argue that the Earth is a certain age and was created by God in a certain way based on a compendium of texts they believe to have been divinely inspired.
In order for me to even BEGIN to consider their arguments as MERITING consideration, they're going to have to demonstrate the divinity of said scriptures. Otherwise, the point is completely moot.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Wow, David Bowles!
What's up, David???
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Something's been bothering about this whole debate, and I finally know what it is. Ron et al. argue that the Earth is a certain age and was created by God in a certain way based on a compendium of texts they believe to have been divinely inspired.
In order for me to even BEGIN to consider their arguments as MERITING consideration, they're going to have to demonstrate the divinity of said scriptures. Otherwise, the point is completely moot.
David, I believe Holy scripture to be divinely inspired and have never for an instant believed that the earth is anything in the neighborhood of thousands of years old. It is clearly billions of years old and I have absolutely no problem with saying that. I also have no problem saying that scripture is "of God."
I don't however, believe that scripture itself is divine -- which is literally what you have said here -- the "divinity of scripture" being what you want proven to your satisfaction.
I know that a few people quote John and talk about how the Word is in God, and is God, and so forth, but I don't think that's a universal belief among YEC's.
At any rate, even if someone could prove to a skeptic that Scripture came "from God" I don't think that fact alone would convince me that the YEC's have it right. I seriously would be surprised if such proof would convince anyone who is more skeptical than I.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
:-) I really think it would be fun to have this depate with one of the hundred or so "flat earthers" around the "globe".
Seriously though, does this make anyone else think about Bean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: How much more satisfying is this: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth....For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalms 33:6, 9, NKJV).
You see, that answers the question. No one else has any other answer, because this is the only answer possible.
Ron, I agree that it is a very satifying answer and one that I deeply believe. It is not, however, dependent on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Honestly I find it considerably more satisfying to imagine how God created the universe through a complex, interconnected, endlessly fascinating process that began billions of years before we were able to even start appreciating it. That in no way denies the words of the Psalm - it infinitly enriches it. I believe that by tying ourselves to the convolutions needed to justify a literal interpretation, we often lose the wonder of the bigger picture.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You see, that answers the question.
So does "the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it" and "I created you and the rest of the universe last week, with all your memories intact, out of this stuff I kept in my basement."
You find it "satisfying" because you enjoy its limitations.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A couple of old clarifications.
1) I wrote how I despised people who lie or fabricate science or fabricate scripture to prove thier point. They "Bear false witness" in the name of God, or create falsehoods in the name of Truth.
That comment was not directed at KOM--unless he's been misquoting the Bible on purpose. It was more directed at overbearing science teachers who fail students because of their faith, or fame mongering ministers who knowingly falsify science in order to bolster YEC arguments.
2) Ron commented that, the only reason that constants are constant is because God made them that way, as described in a passage of the Bible. Some people did not like my response when I stated it could have just as likely been created by God as described in other relgions. I was not arguing that it was either God or Science. I was arguing that even if you discount Science, we don't have proof of which God.
3)My alien theory was also discarded because of the assumption that aliens could only be created in a universe of stable constants. Given infinite time anything is possible. Further, an advanced civilization capable of enforcing constants could have mastered time travel. So after millenia in a stable universe, these beings may have went back in time to create the stability in the universe that is where they come from.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Dan, when we are dealing with the very nature of the whole universe, we are by definition talking on a cosmic scale. Only God is adequate when we are considering things on this scale. Some quantum physicists have concluded that God needs to exist to be the "Prime Knower" who collapses the probability wave for the entire universe. To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time. Furthermore, it needs to be intelligent, in order to know what it is doing in ordaining/maintaining the constants and "laws" needed to ensure the kind of stable universe inwhich life is possible. By the time you get done postulating all the things that this prime acting force must be, you might as well call it God, because by any other definition, that is what (Who) it would be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time.
Why? You appear to be taking this as a given, but I'm not sure what logic necessitates it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
We've finally reached the super-exciting part where quantum concepts are acted upon as Proof of God. Nothing if not thorough!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:By the time you get done postulating all the things that this prime acting force must be, you might as well call it God,
I'm actually pretty OK with that. However, it doesn't in the least follow from that that anything else religion says God is is remotely true.
quote:because by any other definition, that is what (Who) it would be.
There's where you lose me.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: We've finally reached the super-exciting part where quantum concepts are acted upon as Proof of God. Nothing if not thorough!
Not really. What Ron said is just another iteration of the "God of the Gaps" phenomenon. We don't know what this is, so it's God.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time.
Why? You appear to be taking this as a given, but I'm not sure what logic necessitates it.
The only thing I can think of that might explain Ron's assumption of an unstable universe is a misunderstanding of entropy- the old "Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution" canard. He alludes to as much when he says that we shouldn't exist in a "stable" universe.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Bible prophecy is the proof of the unique authority and reliability of the Bible. That's Bible prophecy interpreted objectively, allowing the Bible to define its own terms and symbols--nothing subjective. It works.
Just so that I can see where you're coming from, what Bible prophecies do you believe have come true? Presumably you believe that the Bible has predicted enough things that it's most reasonable to give it the benefit of the doubt about what it says elsewhere?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To account for the stability of the universe, we need something that can be a prime acting force on a cosmic scale, beyond even space and time.
Why? You appear to be taking this as a given, but I'm not sure what logic necessitates it.
The only thing I can think of that might explain Ron's assumption of an unstable universe is a misunderstanding of entropy- the old "Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution" canard. He alludes to as much when he says that we shouldn't exist in a "stable" universe.
Much in the same vein as atheists who say all believers in the Bible think the earth and all that is in it is more or less 6,000 years old and this proves the foolishness of believers.
Though you will encounter Christians who insist this is so, that does NOT mean there are not Christians who do not believe it in precisely that way, and yet we believe the Bible is, "Of God."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: [QB] WW, you said: "There is no faith here, things are as they are, and they could change any second."
I can only remark that is a sad, fearful, and hopeless outlook.
It's not, actually; what's sad and fearful is your need for a crutch to carry you through life. But in any case, sadness, fear, and hope have no bearing on what's actually true; so if indeed this is the only thing you can remark, you have effectively conceded the debate.
quote:King of Men, can you offer another answer that is logical? If you think you can, be my guest! My declaration was a philosophical challenge. Are you up to it?
Yes. You won't find it satisfying, but I can't help that. The answer is, "Why not?" Until you've shown that there is a good reason for things to be other than they are, you don't need to invent additional explanations. Stability is a lot easier to explain than change, in any case.
Another thing; you should please note that everything you've said about the universe applies equally to your god. What keeps your god stable?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Omega M., so many prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled to the letter, it would take weeks to go over it all. The usual starting point is the prophecies of Daniel. There are four lines of prophecy in Daniel: Chapter 2, chapter 7, chapters 8-9 (which are thematically linked by Gabriel), and chapters 10-12. All four prophecies are parallel, going over the same outline of history, with the same empires in the same sequence (with the exception of Babylon being omitted, since it fell prior to chapter 7).
The Jewish people suffered four major circumstances during the time of Daniel:
1. They had no kingdom. 2. They had king. 3. The sanctuary, the center of their religious practice, lay in ruins. 4. The people were scattered and in captivity among other nations.
The line of prophecy in Daniel 2 addresses the restoration of the kingdom, with the everlasting kingdom that God will establish without any human help. (See verse 44.) The line of prophecy in Daniel 7 addresses the restoration of the king, in the Person of the True King of Israel, the Son of God. See verses 13, 14. The line of prophecy in Daniel 8-9 addresses the restoration of the Sanctuary, in the form of the Temple of God in Heaven being revealed as the true center of Israel's religious practice, as the Day of Atonement is revealed to be the Day of Judgment. See Dan. 8:14. The line of prophecy in Daniel 10-12 addresses the restoration of the people. See Dan. 10:14.
The prophecy in Daniel 11-12 is so detailed, giving virtually a blow-by-blow account of palace intrigues, assasinations, poisonings, that match perfectly with the histories of Persia and Greece, that people who wish to deny the divine inspiration of the Bible have been forced into making desperate claims that the prophecies were written latter, during the time of the Maccabees. They have tried to justify this claim by pointing to the names of certain musical instruments, and saying those names were current in the second century B.C., not in the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. However, further research has disproven this claim, and in fact proven that the opposite was the case.
But even if we allow that Daniel was written during the second century B.C., that does not solve the problem for critics, because the prophecies that go beyond that time still continue to be accurate in their prediction of historical events, up through the time of Rome, and on to the "time of the end."
The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation. One of the most interesting prophecies is the one in Daniel 9:24-27. This gives a calendar which idenifies the year when Christ would be anointed as Messiah (at His baptism in 27 A.D.), and three and one half years later when He would be crucified, in 31 A.D.
Then, since Gabriel links this time prophecy with the time prophecy of 2300 days in Daniel 8:14, we see the starting point for that prophecy is also the one given for the seventy weeks (or literally seventy sevens) of Daniel 9:24, which history and the book of Ezra indicate was the fall of 457 B.C. We also see that we are also supposed to understand the days in Daniel 8:14 to mean literal years. This leads to the conclusion that the Investigative Judgment for the world began 2300 years after 457 B.C., or in other words, 1844 A.D. The Judgment of the world began in 1844. Soon the judgment will turn from exclusive consideration of the dead, to render final judgment for all those currently living, in the time of test during the final conflict. I believe the prophecies of the seven seals in Revelation portray the key events of history that have taken place since 1844. We are now living toward the end of the fourth seal, and the fifth seal when the judgment of the living begins, is nearing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation.
How odd. Because, y'know, when I efficiently predict things, it's possible to identify them as correct predictions without a book-length presentation.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
You are talking about one prediction. The Bible provides thousands of prophetic predictions, linked in an organized system of historical fulfillment. All these things must be presented in context, and compared to history. The intent is to show that every single Bible prophecy is valid. This is what requires a book-length presentation.
Come on, Tom--would it kill you to be fair-minded about these things?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Come on, Tom--would it kill you to be fair-minded about these things?
Oh geez the lvl 1 Ron just challenged the lvl 26 Tom. *pulls out the d12s*
Here's one for Ron and eleven for Tom.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Ron, quick question(perhaps easily answered): How do you accept the Daniel 8:14 transposition of "days" to "years" but presumably not the same type of thing during the Genesis creation story? (forgive me if I'm incorrect in assuming you believe the creation story literally took a few days and not some longer time which the count of "days" represents)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The line of prophecy in Daniel 7 addresses the restoration of the king, in the Person of the True King of Israel, the Son of God.
Utter rubbish. Nothing in the Hebrew Bible (and I'll include Daniel in that despite much of it being written in Aramaic) ever uses such blasphemous terminology. The King of Israel is just that: a king. A human being; not a divine being. He's no more the son of God than any of us are the sons and daughters of God.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The only way to present this is to go over it point-by-point, which would take a book-length presentation. One of the most interesting prophecies is the one in Daniel 9:24-27. This gives a calendar which idenifies the year when Christ would be anointed as Messiah (at His baptism in 27 A.D.), and three and one half years later when He would be crucified, in 31 A.D.
No, it doesn't. The seventy "weeks" are from the destruction of the First Temple to the destruction of the Second Temple. There's no allusion whatsoever to your JC, Ron.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote:We also see that we are also supposed to understand the days in Daniel 8:14 to mean literal years.
Oh, so now when the Bible says days, it means years, but earlier when it said days, it meant days.
My biggest problem with may people who live for the Rapture is the same problem I have with survivalists in Montana and people who talk of their past lives. They are all so excited to be part of the main drama in the world that they are ready to surrender their lives.
So many people who talk of their past lives always talk about how they were close to famous people. The majority never had anything to do with history. Yet these people want to be important so much, the surrender the chance to be important in this life, an just spread the stories of the truly amazing things they have done before.
Survivalists who bunker down in Montana are daily disappointed that the world continues. They wait with excitement for the chance to play Adam, to be the progenitor of history.
Rapturists believe that they are special because they live in the end of times, unlike the generations before who were neither lucky enough to live in Jesus's time, nor our own. The previous generation were merely time fodder, holding place for the lucky few whom the Rapturists know are their deserving selves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: Not gonna lie, you deserve to watch me disappear while I thumb my nose at you, and you get to sit around and wait for the fires to engulf you.
But in all seriousness I agree with you, well put by the way.
Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son, or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son,
Of course the messiah is God's son. I'm God's daughter. "All God's chillun", you know?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
There's nothing at all in the Hebrew Bible that suggests anything about a supernatural savior. There is not only a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense I suggested, but actual information about who he is going to be, which completely contradicts the idea of him being some sort of supernatural being.
Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Rapturists believe that they are special because they live in the end of times, unlike the generations before who were neither lucky enough to live in Jesus's time, nor our own. The previous generation were merely time fodder, holding place for the lucky few whom the Rapturists know are their deserving selves.
My favorite bumper sticker:
"In case of Rapture... Can I have your car?"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa: Are you so sure the messiah CAN'T be God's son,
Of course the messiah is God's son. I'm God's daughter. "All God's chillun", you know?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: or that there is a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense you suggested.
There's nothing at all in the Hebrew Bible that suggests anything about a supernatural savior. There is not only a complete lack of evidence that suggests he is anything but a man or son of God in the sense I suggested, but actual information about who he is going to be, which completely contradicts the idea of him being some sort of supernatural being.
Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
Thanks Lisa.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
I recongize that this is splitting hairs, but my understanding of the rules for the Cohenim was that the standard for determining you are a Cohen is that your father (who must be a Cohen) claims you as his biological child. It was my understanding that even in an era where genetic testing could easily verify biological parentage that the standard is still the claims of the father.
Is this the case and is this similar for tribal affiliations? If your father claims you as his biological child would it make you a member of his tribe even if genetic tests showed otherwise?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Leaving everything else aside, the messiah is a patrilineal descendant of David. Physically. Adoption doesn't change a person's tribal affiliation, and a person whose physical father isn't a Jew has no tribe whatsoever. He's like a convert, or the child of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. Certainly not a scion of David.
I recongize that this is splitting hairs, but my understanding of the rules for the Cohenim was that the standard for determining you are a Cohen is that your father (who must be a Cohen) claims you as his biological child. It was my understanding that even in an era where genetic testing could easily verify biological parentage that the standard is still the claims of the father.
Is this the case and is this similar for tribal affiliations? If your father claims you as his biological child would it make you a member of his tribe even if genetic tests showed otherwise?
Nope. We do have a concept called chazaka, or legal presumption. Most legal systems do, and ours is no different on that count. If a man claims to be the biological father of the child he's raising, then all other things being equal, and lacking any reason to doubt him, we accept that as being true (exceptions exist, consult your local halakhic authority for details). But if there is evidence to the contrary, the legal presumption can be uprooted. It's not like once the presumption is made, no evidence to the contrary can be considered. The claim that JC was not Joseph's bio-kid cannot coexist with the claim that he is a patrilineal heir of David (unless the claim is that he's the son of some other descendent of David).
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Mary was also descended from David. The point is that God placed His divine Son in the womb of a woman of the tribe of Judah, and the God of the universe, who creates reality itself by simply saying it, declared Jesus Christ is His Son and the Son of David.
Through Daniel, God disclosed the timetable when His Son would appear and be annointed as Messiah, and when He would offer Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world.
The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees." A Jubilee came every 49 years. Christians did not invent this interpretation, but it is the most obvious and straightforward one, consistent with the context.
The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
The word used for vision here is mareh. This is also the word used for vision in Daniel 8:26, when Gabriel was talking about the time prophecy in verse 14: "And the vision [mareh] of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." This is significant, because another word was used for vision [chazown] referring to the historical events of verses 1-12: "Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision [chazown] concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?" (verse 13)
The larger context also demands this interpretation, because Daniel fainted after what Gabriel said in Daniel 8:26, and could not go on. Then in chapter nine we find Daniel pouring over the prophecy of Jeremiah that the captivity of Israel would only be 70 years, and launched into an impassioned prayer begging God to remember His promise that the captivity would only be 70 years. Obviously Daniel feared that the time prophecy of the 2300 days he had been given in Daniel 8:14 meant that God was going to greatly extend the captivity because of the people's sins. Daniel would not have been troubled this way if the 2300 days were only meant to be literal days and not literal years, or only 1150 days as some people have claimed, interpreting the expression evening-mornings as referring to morning and evening sacrifices (rather than recognizing that the unique formulation of evening-mornings referred to the delineation of days in Genesis one).
By linking together the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 with the seventy weeks (and 483 days) of Daniel 9:24-27, when he said "consider the vision (mareh), Gabriel also established logically that the start of the time prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27 was the same starting point that must be used for the time prophecy in Daniel 8:14.
No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
[ December 11, 2006, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
My apologies if that was not intended as a joke.
On a personal note, I find Biblical literalism to be simply very disappointing and rather misguided. Of all the ways that people have interpreted the Bible, the literal interpretation seems to me the least interesting and most pointless. No where is this more true than in the creation stories. When I seek to understand the symbolism in the story, I find deep meaning that is relevant to the choices I make in life. If forced to see it as literal, I can find no value in it at all.
I recognize that this sentiment is not shared by many religious people and do not mean to denegrate their views. If you find this view of the Bible enriching and inspiring, all the better. I simply can't share that view.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, sound scholarship is not the same thing as mere literalism. Sound scholarship can establish objectively when a term is symbolic, and when it is literal, and what the literal equivalent of the symbol must be. These are not mysteries. These things can be definitely known, by using the methods of sound scholarship. I demonstrated this in my last post.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees." A Jubilee came every 49 years. Christians did not invent this interpretation, but it is the most obvious and straightforward one, consistent with the context.
The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
Why?
I mean, does Gabriel have this time problem of confusing days and years so that whenever he speaks we just need to translate? Instead of saying "Therefore understand the matter and consider the vision." why didn't he say, "I meant years there, not days."
Biblical decodifying is a statistical game. Given enough words and numbers to cherry pick out of, you can interpret the 1965's Manhattan Yellow pages to predict the 2006 senatorial race.
There is one other interpretation that can be made with out doing damage to the text.
Daniel was prophesising about the return from Babylon of his people. No more. No less.
Isn't that miracle enough?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mary was also descended from David.
Mary wasn't his father. So it doesn't matter who she was descended from.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The point is that God placed His divine Son in the womb of a woman of the tribe of Judah, and the God of the universe, who creates reality itself by simply saying it, declared Jesus Christ is His Son and the Son of David.
Nope. That's all stuff that was made up after the fact. God is a God of Truth. To say that someone is the son of David when he isn't, according to God's own laws, goes against truth.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Through Daniel, God disclosed the timetable when His Son would appear and be annointed as Messiah, and when He would offer Himself in sacrifice for the sins of the world.
No, he didn't. And the idea of a god or a man being sacrificed for the sins of others goes against the numerous biblical verses that say that each person is responsible for his own sin. It's pagan, and never had so much as a smidgeon of source in anything Jewish.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The seventy weeks prophecy was understood by the Qumran community as meaning 490 literal years
It's understood that way by us as well. It's nice that a group of heretics in the desert agreed, though. <eyes rolling>
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: (and therefore the 483 days and 3 1/2 days must also mean literal years) because they referred to the time prophecy as "ten Jubilees."
Where'd you get ten jubilees from?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: A Jubilee came every 49 years.
Every 50 years. The Jubilee year was the year following the seventh Sabbatical year.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 must also have the same significance of 2300 literal years, because the angel Gabriel linked them together when He said to Daniel in Daniel 9:23: "therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision."
You must have left something out. That, or you're high. Had it said "days", you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes. But when it's explicit in saying "evening-morning", that tells you it's a literal day.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
You've done enough, thanks.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote: [Lisa]...you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes.
That's not a reason! Just because it has been done before does not mean that it was done correctly. Isn't this just groupthink?
quote: From OSC's essay on Groupthink:
...You can tell if a group suffers from groupthink if it:
Collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes,
Demonizes or stereotypes outgroups and their leaders,
Has a culture of uniformity where individuals censor themselves and others so that the facade of group unanimity is maintained...
Lisa, when you take quotes from other people and state things like "You must have left something out. That, or you're high" or "Utter rubbish" or "Feh", I find that rude. You can argue against their points without debasing them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:No other interpretation is possible without doing violence to the text.
My apologies if that was not intended as a joke.
On a personal note, I find Biblical literalism to be simply very disappointing and rather misguided. Of all the ways that people have interpreted the Bible, the literal interpretation seems to me the least interesting and most pointless. No where is this more true than in the creation stories. When I seek to understand the symbolism in the story, I find deep meaning that is relevant to the choices I make in life. If forced to see it as literal, I can find no value in it at all.
I recognize that this sentiment is not shared by many religious people and do not mean to denegrate their views. If you find this view of the Bible enriching and inspiring, all the better. I simply can't share that view.
Your sentiment is shared by at least this religious person. Well done.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote: [Lisa]...you could have interpreted it as years, because that's done sometimes.
That's not a reason! Just because it has been done before does not mean that it was done correctly. Isn't this just groupthink?
I'm sorry, White Whale, I was unclear. I didn't mean to say that interpreting it as years is done sometimes. I meant that the word "days" is actually used to mean years sometimes.
I'll have to look it up, but it's used that way in the narrative about David, and "week" in Daniel 9 clearly refers to a period of seven years, rather than seven days.
But even beyond that, the actual meaning of a text is what the author meant. Not what a later reader might read into it. And the books of the Bible were not written in a vacuum, by some loner in a cave or a desert. Their authors were embedded in the Jewish community, and the terms used were those which would be understood by that community. And those of us who have a direct chain of continuous transmission of that culture know what certain things mean. That isn't "groupspeak"; it's what it means.
Someone unfamiliar with English language idioms might hear you say, "You must be pulling my leg", and conclude that you're using the words incorrectly, since no one even touched you. And then you could respond that as a part of the culture in which that expression lives, you know what it means, even if he doesn't. That's not groupspeak; it's just what it means.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Nice answer, Lisa.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, for someone who prides herself inknowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and tradition, you betray a surprising error when you say that Jubilees were every 50 years. That is a common mistake, because the Jubilee was sometimes called a fiftieth year. But actually it was the first year of the next Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee cycle was indeed 49 years. Ask your rabbi, or some other qualified scholar of the Torah.
God was Jesus' Father in the Incarnation. You do not wish to acknowledge that. But your denial does not constitute an argument. It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
If you insist on denying that there is any substantive connection between the time prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27, then the burden is on you to explain why else the angel Gabriel said "consider the vision [mareh]" when he began his remarks to Daniel in Daniel nine.
Why would God or the angel say "day" when he meant "years"? Why would God say "mountain" or some beast, or some type of metal, when he meant "kingdom"? The fact that God is deliberately using such symbolism is made clear by the Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy in Daniel 8. Note this: "The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king." (Daniel 8:20-21; NASB) Here is a direct declaration that God is using symbology--and Gabriel here plainly stated what the symbols mean.
As for viewing prophetic days as being symbolic of literal years, here are two well-known and often quoted precedents for this: "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:34) "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." (Ezekiel 4:6)
I do have to say that I agree with you that the over-simplistic idea of the innocent dying for the guilty is unethical and unjust, specifically forbidden by the Bible. This is why the Son of God had to actually take humanity upon Himself, become the new Adam, the federated head of our race, so He could execute the just sentence against the sin of humanity in Himself. The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize this point. The Incarnation was as necessary to salvation as the Crucifixion. Christ had to become qualified to stand in our place, He could not just arbitrarily say, "Punish Me in their place." He actually had to take responsibility for the sins of our race by becoming in actuality our whole race. Our sins are punished and justice is satisfied in Him. And the demands of the law for righteousness of life are also satisfied in Him, who is our life. Jesus Christ stands for us in Judgment. Not just by our sides, as an Advocate, but in our place, to be judged in our place.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
God's word is immortal and unchanging. Human language, not so much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
Ron, I would be careful about using the words "objective fact" about things that we have no way of verifying. The only "record" we have of Jesus's lineage is in the gospels - written after the fact by people who already believed Jesus to be the Messiah.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, for someone who prides herself inknowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures and tradition, you betray a surprising error when you say that Jubilees were every 50 years. That is a common mistake, because the Jubilee was sometimes called a fiftieth year. But actually it was the first year of the next Jubilee cycle. The Jubilee cycle was indeed 49 years. Ask your rabbi, or some other qualified scholar of the Torah.
Whew! <laugh> How harsh.
In point of fact, it's a dispute in the Talmud whether the Jubilee year (the 50th year) is also the first year of the next cycle or not. Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Meir, if I'm not misremembering. So yes, 49 years is a valid view. I was just tweaking you for being so cocksure of yourself.
Nevertheless, it is, and remains, a matter of dispute, and your 49 year theory is only one theory. It certainly isn't a fact.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God was Jesus' Father in the Incarnation. You do not wish to acknowledge that.
It isn't a matter of "acknowledging it" or not, Ron. I think it's a little silly, sure, but the issue isn't whether it's the case or not. The issue is what it does to the claim of Davidic descent. If JC's father wasn't descended from David, then he was not a possible king of the Davidic line.
Hillel the Elder was descended from David on his mother's side, and from the tribe of Benjamin on his father's. That didn't make him or his descendents possible heirs to the Davidic dynasty. He and his line were Ethnarchs in Judea for centuries, and no claim was ever made that they were Davidic rulers of any kind, because you just can't make that claim without it being fully patrilineal.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But your denial does not constitute an argument. It is an objective fact that Jesus was born into the tribe of Judah, part of the genetic line of David. Your tradition has no weight compared to the objective facts of genetics.
"Objective fact". <grin> Ron, it isn't even an objective fact that the man existed.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you insist on denying that there is any substantive connection between the time prophecies of Daniel 8:14 and 9:24-27, then the burden is on you to explain why else the angel Gabriel said "consider the vision [mareh]" when he began his remarks to Daniel in Daniel nine.
Why wouldn't he? Daniel only gets one vision?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why would God or the angel say "day" when he meant "years"?
You realize that a "week" in Daniel 9 is seven years, so why do you have a problem with a day being a year? It can be either. If God had intended for these prophecies to be obvious in their meaning, I assure you, He could have done so.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why would God say "mountain" or some beast, or some type of metal, when he meant "kingdom"? The fact that God is deliberately using such symbolism is made clear by the Gabriel's explanation of the prophecy in Daniel 8. Note this: "The ram which you saw with the two horns represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king." (Daniel 8:20-21; NASB) Here is a direct declaration that God is using symbology--and Gabriel here plainly stated what the symbols mean.
Okay. And your point is...?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for viewing prophetic days as being symbolic of literal years, here are two well-known and often quoted precedents for this: "After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise." (Numbers 14:34) "And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year." (Ezekiel 4:6)
In those cases, it says explicitly that the day is representing a year. But yes, there are certainly places where "day" is used to mean "year". I don't dispute that. But this doesn't say "day" -- it says "evening-morning". As though he's trying to make clear that this is really a day.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I do have to say that I agree with you that the over-simplistic idea of the innocent dying for the guilty is unethical and unjust, specifically forbidden by the Bible. This is why the Son of God had to actually take humanity upon Himself, become the new Adam, the federated head of our race, so He could execute the just sentence against the sin of humanity in Himself.
God doesn't change that way. Adam was Adam, and there's nothing in the Bible that suggests that someone can be "the new Adam". I mean, God offered to make Moses the "new Abraham", in a manner of speaking, but there's nothing about a new Adam.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize this point. The Incarnation was as necessary to salvation as the Crucifixion.
There's no need for what you term "salvation". That came to fix a problem that wasn't there. Afterwards, y'all invented the problem to make the fix necessary.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Christ had to become qualified to stand in our place, He could not just arbitrarily say, "Punish Me in their place." He actually had to take responsibility for the sins of our race by becoming in actuality our whole race.
That doesn't make any sense. Everyone who was living at the time remained living. They weren't merged into some super-entity. Someone calling himself the sum total of everyone doesn't make it so. JC didn't become Pilate, and he didn't become anyone else. He just died.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:They weren't merged into some super-entity.
*giggle* I'm suddenly picturing Power Rangers...
-pH
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, wasn't Noah in a sense the second Adam? At one point, he was the head of all humanity still in existence, and the father of all who were yet to come. Adam really justs means "the man."
Jesus had to become "the man"--not just a man--in order to obtain salvation for our race. You surely know that the death of animals never meant anything beyond an expression of faith in the provision God would make for our salvation. But neither could God just arbitarily forgive us, without being unjust. To do so would indicate either that we were not really sinners, or else that the law which identifies sin is invalid. Either one would mean that Lucifer was right in his controversy with God. In order to uphold His own righteousness and refute Satan, He had to execute the penalty of death against the sinner, and provide a new righteousness that is in harmony with the law, that yet can be imputed to the one who accepts God's forgiveness.
We are all given a choice whether to accept the Messiah as the new Head of our race, a race that has been re-established with a righteous heritage. We cannot have righteousness before God by any other means, because God deliberately refrains from giving us perfected, "sinless flesh" before the Second Coming of Christ. God wishes by this to prove that real righeousness, the kind that matters to Him, consists in faith in Him, and not in anything within our own natures.
Angelic perfection failed in Heaven when Lucifer sinned. Human perfection failed in Eden. Perfection is not enough. What we are by nature is not the issue, otherwise Lucifer could have argued (and probably did) that because angels have perfect natures, they should not be subject to any Divine Law.
Jesus Christ became the FEDERATED Head of our race. All who live come from Him in spirit, and by legal reckoning of God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, wasn't Noah in a sense the second Adam?
No. There were 8 people on the Ark.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At one point, he was the head of all humanity still in existence, and the father of all who were yet to come. Adam really justs means "the man."
He wasn't his wife's father. And Adam only means "man" (not "the man", which would be ha-Adam) because that was his name.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus had to become "the man"--not just a man--in order to obtain salvation for our race. You surely know that the death of animals never meant anything beyond an expression of faith in the provision God would make for our salvation.
I know nothing of the sort. The issue is repentence and forgiveness. That's what the sacrifices were for. Not "salvation", a purely pagan concept.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But neither could God just arbitarily forgive us, without being unjust.
Nonsense. That's what repentence is all about. God told Moses "I have forgiven according to your word", without any sacrifice whatsoever, even of animals. It's all about repentence. The prophets were constantly criticizing us for doing exactly what you're doing. Focusing on the sacrifice, rather than the repentence. We learned that lesson, but it seems that you haven't. God doesn't need a sacrifice to forgive us. God doesn't delight in the blood of animals, and He most certainly doesn't ask for the blood of people. He asks for a broken heart and that we leave our wrong acts and do the right thing.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: To do so would indicate either that we were not really sinners, or else that the law which identifies sin is invalid. Either one would mean that Lucifer was right in his controversy with God.
Another pagan myth. There is no "Lucifer" who had a "controversy with God". That's straight out of Bullfinch's Mythology.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: In order to uphold His own righteousness and refute Satan, He had to
Had to? Not the God I worship.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We are all given a choice whether to accept the Messiah as the new Head of our race, a race that has been re-established with a righteous heritage.
Nope. That's not what the messiah is. The messiah is not a new head of a race; he's the king of Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: We cannot have righteousness before God by any other means, because God deliberately refrains from giving us perfected, "sinless flesh" before the Second Coming of Christ.
Ridiculous. "Sinless flesh". Flesh is just flesh, Ron. It's not sinless and it's not sinful. What we choose to do with it is all that matters. And God says that Abraham was righteous before the Lord, so I guess you're wrong about what we can and cannot have.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God wishes by this to prove that real righeousness, the kind that matters to Him, consists in faith in Him, and not in anything within our own natures.
Again, wrong. We have free will, and God sent His prophets to tell us that what He wants of us is that we do the right thing. Faith, shmaith. It is absolutely up to us. "It is not beyond the sea, that you should say: Who will go and fetch it for us." It's in our hands and our hearts. Read what God says; not the rationalizations of your religion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Angelic perfection failed in Heaven when Lucifer sinned.
Was that before or after the Cylons destroyed the 12 Colonies? I've read To Reign In Hell. Brust writes well, but it's still just a story.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Human perfection failed in Eden.
Obviously not. Had we been perfect, we wouldn't have failed. We are not perfect, and we're never going to be perfect. We strive for perfection because that's the right direction.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Jesus Christ became the FEDERATED Head of our race. All who live come from Him in spirit, and by legal reckoning of God.
Ick. Just... ick.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, I think one of my big problems with YEC is that it presumes that Creation is "done". That God did God's thing 6000-ish years ago and that was it. I believe that Creation is still happening, God is still Creating us and calling upon us to participate in that Creation. It is a dynamic thing that is relevant now rather than a static thing that we view only as historical.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa, you ought to take it easy with Ron. I'm an atheist, but I wouldn't rip into your beliefs the way you're doing with his. I admit I called them confused and chaotic, but you're specifically singling out stuff and labeling it bullsh*t. I mean, I could easily take "there were 8 people on the ark" and say, "Yeah, that's the mythological distortion you weirdoes added to the TRUE tale of Uta-Napisti... I mean, c'mon, so you were slaves in Babylon, but did you really have to steal the flood story and then screw it up, too? Forty days and night? Pshaw."
It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The problem, David, is that Ron is making claims about Jewish belief. I get that; Christianity thinks it's derived from Jewish belief. But I'm not saying "Immaculate conception is silly", because that has nothing to do with us. What I'm talking down to is the distortions of Judaism that Ron keeps posting. Daniel was a Jew. Isaiah was a Jew. They lived and wrote their books in a Jewish context. The laws of the Jubilee year were given to the Jews at Sinai. You see?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Angelic perfection failed in Heaven when Lucifer sinned.
Was that before or after the Cylons destroyed the 12 Colonies? I've read To Reign In Hell. Brust writes well, but it's still just a story. [/QB]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa, yes, I get that, but what I mean to say is that Adventists and other Christian groups subsume Jewish texts and reinterpret them, much as Jewish texts did with Babylonian, Canaanite and (arguably) Egyptian religious traditions. A Jew could argue that, despite what Babylonian authors THOUGHT they were doing, the reality was that G-D was guiding them to produce a story that Jews would correctly interpret later on; Ron, most of the time, is making a similar claim about Tanakh writers.
A caveat to my comments is that if he makes a claim about modern Jewish belief about the scriptures, he's out of his league, and you're justified in making mincemeat out of him, heh.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I think in this particular discussion, Lisa is providing a valuable counterpoint to Ron's interpretations. I also think it is valid that she do so since Ron is (or at least appears to be) stating his interpretations as objective fact. If he were saying "I believe. . ." etc, then sure, let's be kind to his beliefs. But when he's presenting it as fact that the rest of us would realize if only we were as studied in scripture as he is then I think Lisa's OK with responding in kind. Personally, I'd still take the softer approach, but I haven't nearly the knowledge she has on the subject so since I can't do what she's doing I'll cut her the slack for the way she's doing it, in this particular discussion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, all the human race that followed the Flood came from Noah. Sure, they came from Mrs. Noah too, and you might have mentioned the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as well, but that does not change the fact that Noah was the father of all who followed.
Thanks for your concern, David Bowles, but Lisa is more of a problem to herself than she is to me. She has not come close to "getting my goat" yet. I am fascinated finding out what very conservative Jewish thinking will do with some of the logical, philosophical, and scriptural arguments I present.
For example, I am amazed and a little saddened that she would deny my very obviously true observation that human perfection failed in Eden. Were not Adam and Eve created perfect? God said that everything He created was very good. It is of vast importance for us to realize that it was perfect human beings who chose to sin. They did not sin because of anything in their nature or a lack of something in them; if that were the case, they would have an excuse, and sin would not be sin.
And Lisa, despite your snide comment about Cylons, you surely do believe that angels exist, and that they were created as perfect beings, and that some of them, led by Lucifer, sinned. Or do you attempt to rationalize away Ezekiel 28:13-15 by supposing that these words were merely addressed to the human king of Tyre: "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."
Lisa, you do not seem to know either what righteusness is, or what sin is. Your view of forgiveness and repentance are very shallow. There is no virtue in repentance, and forgiveness must not be arbitary, or it is cheap and meaningless.
Nor, sadly, do you seem to comprehend what it means for the Messiah to be King of Israel. I must challenge you directly on this point: you do not know who Israel is. You think you do, but you do not. You cannot see beyond race and tribe and traditional creed.
You seem to think it is within the capacity of mere humans to do and think righteousnessly, that we can repent on our own power, and that makes everything right; and that we can then live perfect and sinless lives if we so choose. You may quote texts about having clean hands and pure hearts. But what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Or with Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." It was a holy prophet of Israel who said that.
If God is willing to make you perfect now, then show it to us. I say that God only purposes to perfect our faith in Him at this time, for He alone is righteous. He is righteousness Personified. So if you do not count faith in Him as the main thing, then how much like Him are you in yourself?
Suppose in the final moments of his life Adolf Hitler had said, "Oops, sorry about all that God. Guess I was wrong about a few things." Then suppose God said, "That's all right, I forgive you. Forget about it. I have."
Does this really meet your mind as being divinely just? Does this adequately deal with the seriousness of sin and evil? Does this not cheapen the forgiveness of God to something arbitrary and meaningless, as if God Himself has embraced evil, making no real difference between good and evil?
Lisa, your philosophy of religion is way too shallow. You are not thinking deeply enough about the things that really and truly matter. Your tribe or race and its self-serving creed as you interpret them have little value and nothing to offer to the rest of us. At least we Christians try to address these ultimate universal concerns. You only duck them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You cannot see beyond race and tribe and traditional creed.
Weren't the Jews instructed by God to not see beyond race, tribe, and traditional creed?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, I think that if Hitler (or anyone else) in the final moments of his life - or even later - truly repented (understanding that true repentance includes really getting what you did - which has to be unfathomably difficult for grievous sins) it would be possible to be in relationship with God.
That is vastly different from, "Forget about it." It may be the opposite of "Forget about it." I think, that in your view, you are selling short the infinite capacity of God's love. I trust that God never stops wanting to be with us and never makes that impossible for us.
Lisa is right, it is about repentance, not sacrifice. I believe that the sacrifice is a symbol for repentance, not a substitute for it.
[ December 13, 2006, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, God's promise to Abraham, the father of all the Jews, included this: "And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice." (Genesis 22:18)
kmboots, I tried to word my example so the shallow flippancy of Hitler's "repentance" would be apparent. Of course, Christ forgave the thief on the cross crucified beside Him. But it was Christ on the cross who made forgiveness possible. A price was paid. It was not cheap.
Also, I would note that no human being is capable of true repentance. Repentence is more than mere regret. Only the Holy Spirit can enable us to repent truly. And even the Holy Spirit is not our Savior, He merely brings and connects us to the Savior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, yes, I get that, but what I mean to say is that Adventists and other Christian groups subsume Jewish texts and reinterpret them, much as Jewish texts did with Babylonian, Canaanite and (arguably) Egyptian religious traditions.
I don't think that's true. I hear that you do, but I disagree. Whereas Ron can't dispute that it's our texts that he's rebooting.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: A Jew could argue that, despite what Babylonian authors THOUGHT they were doing, the reality was that G-D was guiding them to produce a story that Jews would correctly interpret later on; Ron, most of the time, is making a similar claim about Tanakh writers.
A Jew could argue that, I suppose. This Jew doesn't. The "Canaanite" material you're referring to postdates ours, and the Babylonian stuff isn't any contradiction. It does refer to a local Mesopotamian flood, which is mentioned in Jewish sources as well, but which took place a few centuries after the Flood of Noah.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: A caveat to my comments is that if he makes a claim about modern Jewish belief about the scriptures, he's out of his league, and you're justified in making mincemeat out of him, heh.
<grin> Heh is right.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
This is the way I see it, and it caters to both sides.
In the bible it says the earth was created in 7 days. Now how long is a day in heaven? Heaven is eternal, there really isnt a sense of time. So the writers in the bible had to put in some sense of time for us to understand. How are they going to explain eternity well enough that people understand? I dont believe that anyone on the earth even comprehends eternity completely.
Also, we dont know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. I mean, Adam had to name all of the animals, right? There were probably hundreds of MILLIONS of animals. I worked it out once that if Adam named an animal a second, it would have taken him over 100 years without a break to name all of them, excluding the dinosaurs.
The Garden was a Celestial place, so I can only assume that time passed at the same rate as heaven there. If time passed normally outside of the Garden of Eden, (Which it probably did, since when they got kicked out they knew that it was a different place and that there was sorrow and death there) then we can wonder that perhaps millions or billions of years had passed between the time Adam awoke in the garden and the time he ate the fruit. We have no idea nor any writings which tell us how long Adam and Eve hung out in the garden.
So it could be 6000 years since the FALL of Adam, and thus the beginning of time for man.
Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
I am far more interested in why they are dancing and in knowing that we can dance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
You're assuming the flood was a myth. Assuming its true we can be lead to the equally plausible possibility that the ancestor of the Babylonians descended from Noah's loins and carried the story to his/her own descendants.
Native Americans when they encountered the Europeans also retained a very ancient story of a global deluge. But since we only have their oral traditions we can't safely date them at all. Is it not equally likely if we assume its a myth that there is a possibility that THEY, or more accurately their ancestors had the myth first and it spread west? Obviously its just as likely they got the myth from the Babylonians and carried it over as well.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, all the human race that followed the Flood came from Noah. Sure, they came from Mrs. Noah too, and you might have mentioned the wives of Shem, Ham, and Japheth as well, but that does not change the fact that Noah was the father of all who followed.
So what? If anything, that makes your argument about a dead Jew in the 1st century being "the new Adam" even less workable. Or do you claim that everyone at that time died and we're all descended from JC?
(And yes, I'm quite aware that I'm giving him an opening here -- think of it as enough rope.)
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Thanks for your concern, David Bowles, but Lisa is more of a problem to herself than she is to me. She has not come close to "getting my goat" yet.
Who's trying to? Your attitude of preaching at us irks me. As KarlEd pointed out, you keep assuming that you have some sort of greater knowledge here, and that we only disagree because we're ignorant. You state your beliefs as fact. Well, I can do that as well, because frankly, I think mine are fact. And I know that yours aren't. So onwards...
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I am fascinated finding out what very conservative Jewish thinking will do with some of the logical, philosophical, and scriptural arguments I present.
And some would suggest that I keep silent for just that reason. I know that some missionary types like to pick our brains so that they can improve their techniques. On the other hand, it's always possible that even you might sit up at some point and say, "Holy Hell. Lisa's right. What on earth was I thinking?"
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: For example, I am amazed and a little saddened that she would deny my very obviously true observation that human perfection failed in Eden.
Oh, yawn. "Very obviously true", my butt.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Were not Adam and Eve created perfect?
No. Not by any use of the term "perfect" that I suspect you'd accept. What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil. He created Adam that way, and He created Eve that way. And they made a bad choice in Eden. Oops. Not a small oops, of course; an earthshattering, Very Bad Oops. But an oops nonetheless.
They weren't perfect. They were people. Your picturing them as perfect goes hand in hand with the idea that we're all born tainted nowadays. We're not. We're all imperfect beings who strive for perfection. It's moving in that direction that counts, Ron. The trip -- not the destination.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: God said that everything He created was very good.
And you're equating "very good" and "perfect". That's a mistake.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is of vast importance for us to realize that it was perfect human beings who chose to sin.
It's of vast importance to your philosophy to think that, but it's of no importance whatsoever to "realize" it. Without them being perfect, you wouldn't have a justification for saying that human beings can never make it without divine grace. You need the sin in Eden to be an utter, metaphysical catastrophe, rather than the sin of two people.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They did not sin because of anything in their nature or a lack of something in them; if that were the case, they would have an excuse, and sin would not be sin.
So according to you, if you have within you the ability to choose to sin, it's not sin? That's ridiculous. God gave them (us) the ability to choose. Making the wrong choice is making the wrong choice.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And Lisa, despite your snide comment about Cylons, you surely do believe that angels exist, and that they were created as perfect beings, and that some of them, led by Lucifer, sinned.
How do you guffaw in writing? "Heh" certainly doesn't do it, and ROTFLOLSHTICHB is way too long.
You're a laugh a minute, Ron. Out of your gourd in this case, but funny nonetheless. Yes, angels exist. "Perfect beings". Eh. Lucifer? A fictional character. You're getting Milton mixed up with reality, Ron.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Or do you attempt to rationalize away Ezekiel 28:13-15 by supposing that these words were merely addressed to the human king of Tyre:
"Rationalize away"? So speaks Mr. Literal Reading. That's what it says, Ron. That's the message to the king of Tyre. Tyre, remember, from whence Hiram came to craft the marvels of Solomon's Temple. The holy mountain of God.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you do not seem to know either what righteusness is, or what sin is.
Ron, you are arrogant in your limited knowledge. If you were willing to learn, and to reduce your ignorance, I'd be a lot more polite with you.
Righteousness means doing the right thing. Sin means doing the wrong thing. As a matter of fact, "sin" isn't really very precise. There are multiple types of sin, at least according to God. Heit, avone, and pesha` are the main ones.
Heit is the one that's generally translated, simply, as "sin". It also means to miss the target in archery (see the story of David and Jonathan and the New Month banquet). You might get a glimmer of what "sin" means from that. It means simply to blow it. Oops.
Argue with God, if you like.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your view of forgiveness and repentance are very shallow. There is no virtue in repentance, and forgiveness must not be arbitary, or it is cheap and meaningless.
Now you're judging God. God, who said that what He wants is our repentence. God, who absolutely does forgive when we repent wholeheartedly. God, who demonstrated this over and over in the desert, or I wouldn't be here to argue with you, and you wouldn't have anything to argue about.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Nor, sadly, do you seem to comprehend what it means for the Messiah to be King of Israel.
Arrogant. Misplaced arrogance. Almost clownish in its detachment from reality. Just... wow.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I must challenge you directly on this point: you do not know who Israel is. You think you do, but you do not. You cannot see beyond race and tribe and traditional creed.
First time we argued, Ron, was, if I'm not mistaken, over on Ornery. And ornery is exactly what you got when I pointed out to you that God gave the Sabbath to us, and not to you. Jealousy is ugly, Ron. Covetousness is shameful. Live with it. "It is an eternal sign between Me and the Children of Israel." You don't like that, so you try and redefine what Israel is. It's pathetic.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You seem to think it is within the capacity of mere humans to do and think righteousnessly, that we can repent on our own power, and that makes everything right;
It's not me thinking that, Ron. It's God who said it. Don't let your passion for your religion lead you into rebellion against your Creator.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and that we can then live perfect and sinless lives if we so choose.
No one is perfect. You need to get over these extreme ideas of yours and rejoin the rest of humanity. When I walk, I sometimes trip. And then I pick myself up and keep walking. Only an infant or a toddler stays down and cries until his mother comes to pick him up. Your view is infantile in exactly that way. God wants us to do our best. And to repent when we fall short. God isn't the kind of parent who infantilizes his children by telling them they can't do anything without him. He's a good parent, who demands that we stand on our own two legs and make Him proud of us. And of ourselves.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You may quote texts about having clean hands and pure hearts. But what do you do with Jeremiah 17:9: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Or with Isaiah 64:6: "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." It was a holy prophet of Israel who said that.
Indeed it was. And to someone who requires that we be either perfect or dirt, that's got to be really disturbing. Happily, God doesn't require that we be either perfect or dirt. He gave us the ability to choose, and He is always there to accept repentence. Isaiah was speaking to us when he said that, and not to the human condition. He was talking in a specific historical situation, but with a message that was intended to be relevant for all generations.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If God is willing to make you perfect now, then show it to us.
Good God. You know what you call someone who demands perfection? "Disappointed".
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I say that God only purposes to perfect our faith in Him at this time, for He alone is righteous.
He alone is perfectly righteous. That's correct. We are not. Nor were Adam and Eve. We strive for it, and that's what God wants.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: He is righteousness Personified. So if you do not count faith in Him as the main thing, then how much like Him are you in yourself?
...the hell? You're mixing up righteousness and faith. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
When we choose the good, we are that much more like God. When we choose the evil, we are that much more unlike Him.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Suppose in the final moments of his life Adolf Hitler had said, "Oops, sorry about all that God. Guess I was wrong about a few things." Then suppose God said, "That's all right, I forgive you. Forget about it. I have."
The rabbis say: "There are those who earn their reward in a single hour, and there are those who lose their reward in a single hour." Don't you dare try your emotional blackmail tactics on me by trying to put me in a situation you think I won't be able to be consistent. Hell yes, Hitler could have repented. And it would have done much. It wouldn't have been "forget it", but it would have been something.
Here are the laws of repentence, as formulated by Moses Maimonides. Needless to say (though maybe it's not needless here), he didn't come up with any of the material here -- he codified the laws that already existed.
Note 1:4
quote:Even though repentance atones for all transgressions, as does the very aspect of the Day of Atonement, there are nevertheless some sins which are not atoned for immediately upon repentance, and there are some which are atoned only after some interval [after repentance]. If, for example, one had transgressed a positive commandment which does not carry a penalty of excision and one then repented, one is not atoned until one has been forgiven,, for it is written, "Return, faithless children, and I will restore your decline". If, for example, one had transgressed a negative commandment which does not carry a penalty of excision or death and one then repented, then one's repentance is held in suspense, and the Day of Atonement completes the atonement, for it is written, "For on that day He will forgive you"6. If, for example, one had transgressed a commandment which carries a penalty of excision or death and one then repented, then one's repentance and the atonement of the Day of Atonement are held in suspense, and one's death completes the atonement.
Yes, even Hitler could have atoned. Don't think you're above God, able to judge the capacity of His mercy.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Does this really meet your mind as being divinely just? Does this adequately deal with the seriousness of sin and evil? Does this not cheapen the forgiveness of God to something arbitrary and meaningless, as if God Himself has embraced evil, making no real difference between good and evil?
Yes, yes, no. In that order.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, your philosophy of religion is way too shallow. You are not thinking deeply enough about the things that really and truly matter.
You aren't judging me when you say these things, Ron. You're judging your Maker. All of this is what God has to say on the matter. You may want it to be otherwise, but I'm not shallow -- I'm educated in God's Torah. What matters is what God says matters; not what you want to matter.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Your tribe or race and its self-serving creed as you interpret them have little value and nothing to offer to the rest of us. At least we Christians try to address these ultimate universal concerns. You only duck them.
You and yours have been using your idea of "imperfection = trash" for centuries to keep people in the dirt. "You're worthless and weak! You deserve nothing! You are nothing! Give over your will and your mind to God, you pathetic worm, and only then will you become worthwhile, though through no merit of your own!" It's sick. Contemptible, really. A parent acting that way should lose his children.
[ December 13, 2006, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
I think this is an allusion to the idea that perhaps the fossils were already afloat in a sea of unorganized debris from which the earth was created. I've heard the idea so expressed anyway. I have some serious issues with this as an answer to Biblical literalism, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Repentence is more than mere regret.
True words. Repentence is made up of 4 pieces:
Regretting the misdeed.
Confessing the sin aloud to God.
Making amends to the extent possible.
Committing not to do it again.
Maybe that's the source of your outrage. You see repentence as nothing but regret. That's a mistake.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
I definitely get it, Kate. Believe me, I don't see Ron as representing anyone but Ron.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Another thought not related to the other one. Many people think that the earth cannot be only 6000 years old because of fossils and bones. But this is easily explained in that God created the earth out of matter unorganized.
That makes no sense. Rephrase.
He might be suggesting that the earth was assembled from elements that have always existed or were converted into their present form billions of years ago, and it was only 6000 years ago that God assembled these elements together to form the earth. But thats my guess.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:It's just too easy to smash religious beliefs, and to see a person of one faith do it to a person of another is, especially for an atheist, pretty freaking depressing... heh.
Yeah... while we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, anyway?
That's actually not such a big deal. Take the area of the head of a pin, divide it by the average area of an angel, and you have your answer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
David, In early discussions Lisa has made it clear that she believes that the 5 books of Moses were dictated to Moses by God letter for letter and that this has been preserved without error to this day. Given this position, you are wasting your time.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa, not to get into an argument or anything, but the flood story in Gilgamesh is not meant to be just a local Mesopotamian flood... the Sumerians, Akkadians and Babylonians believed that the entire earth was flooded. Since the earliest tablets containing the Uta-Napishti flood story (the one we read of in Gilgamesh) predate any extant copies of Genesis, and since the similarities between the Hebrew tale and the Babylonian are legion and not credibly a result of chance, the more defensible scholarly position is that Hebrews picked up the Babylonian story, changed the names and some details, and incorporated the myth into their religion.
They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
[Edit: Or what Rabbit said.]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, During at the first century after Christ, the majority of Christians came from the Jewish tradition. The authors of the books in the Christian New Testiment were all Jewish. There is substantial historic evidence suggesting that in the first century AD, there was substantial disagreement among Jews over whether Jesus was the Messiah. These disagreements lead to a split in the Jewish religion. Those who rejected the possibility that Jesus could be the Messiah, became modern Judaism. Those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, became known as Christians.
While I know from previous discussions that you reject this historical view, there is substantial evidence to support its validity. While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Your disrespect for Christianity and those who view themselves as part of a Judaeo-Christian tradition may be acceptable in some circles. But at Hatrack we have signed an agreement to treat each others views with respect. If you can not do that, then you should refrain from responding to Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.
The disrespect you have shown to Christians at this site reflects poorly not only on you but also on your faith. I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just checking...I don't need to throw in my usual, "the views of any particular Christian don't represent the views of all Christians" disclaimer. Right?
I myself find some of the views expressed here, pretty "out there" and I would guess that Ron would feel the same way about mine.
I definitely get it, Kate. Believe me, I don't see Ron as representing anyone but Ron.
Thanks, I appreciate that. It worries me that some of that could be considered representative of all Christian belief.
I liked what you said about repentance. And, for what it is worth, I think you are right about this as well:
quote: What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil.
I would say that we are created good (or potentially good) and it is God's will that we choose good, but that we are free to choose evil. I think that freedom is somewhat constrained? tainted? not by God, but by circumstance. For example, someone who has never known good is going to have a harder time choosing good. So our choices effect more than just ourselves.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: Ill be honest I have found Lisa to be quite capable of respectful discourse. I find it perfectly understandable that Ron's quite condescending words irk Lisa. We have at least one thread that I started where I asked alot of questions about Judaism and Lisa, Rivka, and several others were quite gracious in their responses. Sure there was some friction as the motives of some of the posters was in question, but overall I think it was a successful thread that I could revive at any time and have full confidence that our Jewish hatrackers would be happy to continue contributing in.
I also understand the points Ron is trying to make, but at the same time I can't help but feel that the way he asks them is in the vein of,
"I am right, and I see no reason why you might seriously consider a different conclusion then mine. If you are, it must be because you are being intentionally obtuse."
Ron has not outright said that in those words, but even I get that vibe when reading it.
Lisa is by no means the champion of Jewish thought, but she does know alot, and though she can be driven to pretty heated words, I think she does make a concerted effort to treat Christianity with kid gloves even though at least according to her beliefs Christianity is a heresy.
I am pretty loathe to hit "Add Reply" I really don't like posting on the character and intentions of other hatrackers as I don't consider myself a judge of others characters, but I don't think the rebuke in this instance was warranted.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
.
How do you know this? The earliest Masoretic text is from the 10th century CE, and the Septuagaint from the 3rd century BCE. The documentary hypothesis, which most impartial scholars embrace in one form or another, would fix the earliest fixing of Hebrew oral tradition in writing at some point between the 10th and 8th centuries BCE, long after Moses hypothetically led the Hebrews from Egyptian bondage.
I know that within Jewish scholarship there is a long tradition of Moses's having written the Torah, but it's merely that: tradition. The Torah ITSELF doesn't even claim that authorship. Until we find ancient texts in hieretic or something that are word-for-word the same as the MT, I'll mentally ammend "our version was given to us by God" so it reads "I BELIEVE our version was given to us by GOD." And so on.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa, During at the first century after Christ, the majority of Christians came from the Jewish tradition. The authors of the books in the Christian New Testiment were all Jewish.
Luke was Jewish? Wow, I just learned something new. You don't mind if I check on that, do you?
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: There is substantial historic evidence suggesting that in the first century AD, there was substantial disagreement among Jews over whether Jesus was the Messiah.
No, there isn't. There was a group of Jews who thought that, but they were hardly substantial. The movement didn't really take off until two things happened. The first was that this group itself split over how to deal with non-Jews. The group that wanted to become a non-Jewish religion grew a lot faster, because pagans were much more willing to accept ideas such as a god being killed and rising than Jews were.
The second thing was the Bar Kochba revolt. The leading Sage of all Israel, Rabbi Akiva ben Yosef, made public his view that Bar Kochba was the Messiah. Of course, when Bar Kochba died, he changed his mind. But this revolt took place all over the Roman Empire. It was huge. So huge that the Romans fairly wrecked 3 legions putting it down. The Jewish Christians found themselves in crisis. They simply could not maintain their belief that JC was the Messiah and also fight with their brethren under the leadership of someone touted as the Messiah. So they split again. Those who chose JC went with the pagan Christians, and those who chose their fellow Jews didn't.
That's where the final break came.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: These disagreements lead to a split in the Jewish religion. Those who rejected the possibility that Jesus could be the Messiah, became modern Judaism. Those who accepted Jesus as the Messiah, became known as Christians.
You may like the view that Judaism and Christianity are parallel branches of a previous religion, but it's not so. Judaism is, and was, the Torah God gave us at Sinai. Christianity broke off. I highly doubt you'll even find many Christians who will deny that.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I know from previous discussions that you reject this historical view, there is substantial evidence to support its validity.
I disagree. And I won't accept the TOS being interpreted based purely on your ahistorical belief in this view.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Your disrespect for Christianity and those who view themselves as part of a Judaeo-Christian tradition may be acceptable in some circles. But at Hatrack we have signed an agreement to treat each others views with respect.
Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that. I don't invoke it, because I'm more than able to comfortably refute him.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you can not do that, then you should refrain from responding to Christians who don't agree with your interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures.
I appreciate your opinion. I'll keep it in mind.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks, I appreciate that. It worries me that some of that could be considered representative of all Christian belief.
It's actually very relieving to know that it's not. And I thank you for letting me see that.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I liked what you said about repentance. And, for what it is worth, I think you are right about this as well:
quote: What is with people like you, insisting that people are born (or created) either good or evil. We're not. God created us with free will and the ability to choose good or evil.
I would say that we are created good (or potentially good) and it is God's will that we choose good, but that we are free to choose evil. I think that freedom is somewhat constrained? tainted? not by God, but by circumstance. For example, someone who has never known good is going to have a harder time choosing good. So our choices effect more than just ourselves.
<nod> But ultimately, despite such factors, we still have the choice. A kid from a high crime, gang ridden neighborhood can still rise above it, and a kid from a "good upbringing" can still go bad.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
While we don't know too much that is specific about the author(s) of Luke, we can determine from the writing that it was written primarily for a non-Jewish audience.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles:
quote:They may predate extant copies of Genesis (but then, so does Plato), but they were still just folklore, written down casually. Our version was given to us by God. We didn't copy anything from anyone, "defensible scholarly position" or not.
.
How do you know this?
How do I know anything? It comes from a good source, and it makes sense. I've never done the Michaelson Morley experiments, but I do accept the known value of the speed of light in a vacuum. Why? Because I heard it from a guy, who heard it from a guy, but the chain in question seems fairly reliable to me.
Why? How do you know things? Do you experience each and everything personally before you can say you know it?
My g'g'g'g'g'g'etc'grandparents were at Sinai, and saw God reveal Himself and give us the Torah. They walked through the Red Sea on dry land. They ate manna for 40 years. And they told their kids all about it. As did their 3 million friends and neighbors.
You know the game "telephone"? You whisper in the ear of the person next to you, and they whisper what they heard to the next person, and so on. By the time you get around the whole circle, what's being whispered bears no resemblance whatsoever to what you started out with.
Now. Imagine that you didn't whisper the word. Instead, you spent years of your life teaching the word in the company of others who knew the word as well. Tens of thousands of people in parallel, and not only in parallel, but with horizontal crosschecking as well. Learning Torah is our national sport, David. There is no point at which someone could have passed this all off on us. We're too bloody stubborn for that.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: The earliest Masoretic text is from the 10th century CE, and the Septuagaint from the 3rd century BCE. The documentary hypothesis, which most impartial scholars embrace in one form or another,
Hmm... as Rabbit said earlier, you're kind of wasting your time. Here's a link to a blog entry I wrote called DH Idiocy 1. My apologies if you find that tactless, but I think the DH is one of the funniest pieces of non-scholarship ever perpetrated. It just makes no sense at all.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: I know that within Jewish scholarship there is a long tradition of Moses's having written the Torah, but it's merely that: tradition. The Torah ITSELF doesn't even claim that authorship.
Sure it does.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Until we find ancient texts in hieretic or something that are word-for-word the same as the MT,
Nah. If you find those, you'll claim we copied from them. Don't kid a kidder.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: I'll mentally ammend "our version was given to us by God" so it reads "I BELIEVE our version was given to us by GOD." And so on.
Feel free to emend as the spirit moves you. If you do it with God's Torah, why not do it with what I say?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
Lisa's flip response to me and others here indicate that she feels no more or ethical obligation to show others the respect she demands. If I am incorrect, perhaps your request that she stop speaking falsely about your religion will be answered with an apology. She has never shown a willingess to do that before and I will be shocked if she does now.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
My behavior isn't unjust. You said that it wasn't fair for me to take offensive, because of what you characterized (without support) as "the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity". When someone tells me that what I'm doing isn't fair, when what they really mean is just that they don't like it, my usual response is a sarcastic "aw", or the like. "Life isn't fair" may be seen as a version of the sarcastic "aw".
Hope that helps.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Rabbit, not all Christians spend their time preaching the way Ron does, speaking falsely about my religion. I consider what he's doing to be offensive. It could, in fact, be seen as a violation of the TOS, if I were so petty as to invoke that.
Then stop speaking falsely about mine.
If I have, I apologize.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: While I do not expect you to accept this view of history as true, given that it is the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity, it is hardly fair for you to take such strong offense against those who espouse it.
Life isn't fair.
I never said anything about the fairness of life, I referred only to the fairness of your behavior.
Do you really mean to imply that the unfairness of life justifies your own unjust behavior?
My behavior isn't unjust. You said that it wasn't fair for me to take offensive, because of what you characterized (without support) as "the most widely accepted view for the origins of Christianity". When someone tells me that what I'm doing isn't fair, when what they really mean is just that they don't like it, my usual response is a sarcastic "aw", or the like. "Life isn't fair" may be seen as a version of the sarcastic "aw".
Hope that helps.
It doesn't.
I could easily give you a hundred references to scholarly secular histories of the early christian era which also support my point if I thought it would make any difference. I know that no matter how much data I could produce to back my point, you would still respond in the same sarcastic condescending flippant way.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Then you're probably right about not wasting your time. Good thinking.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa, you don't have to believe me, but if we found a papyrus scroll with hieratic writing that dates from the 13th or 14th centuries BCE, and the contents were essentially the same as the extant MT or LXX, I'd be the first to say, "Yes, Moses very possibly wrote this." I have no vested interest in seeing Judaism shown to be erroneous. I have reached the conclusion that the oral traditions that kept Hebrew history alive in people's minds for over six centuries evolved somewhat and were considerably tweaked when finally committed to writing, but I am certainly open to being proven wrong.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you are interested, I can provide you an extensive bibliography. But before I undertake the effort to compile such a list honestly tell me that you would read even one reference on my list and consider the information presented with an open mind.
I can't actually believe that you are arguing the position you have taken. My claim is the most widely accepted history of Christianity accepts that it began as part of the Judaism. I know that you think this idea is false but if we can't agree that it is widely accepted by most secular, Christian and even Jewish people then you view of reality is so radically different from mine then I don't know where to begin the conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
David Bowles, most Bible students assume that Moses learned the creation story(ies) from verbal accounts handed down among the Hebrews, and also possibly from Egy[tian sources--after all he had a complete Egytian education as a member of the royal family. But here is the real question--did Moses get his creation account from the Babylonians (in their Gilgamesh epic, or whatever) or did BOTH derrive from a common source? The most likely explanation logically is that the global Flood of Genesis actually occurred, and so naturally there are many different accounts of this preserved in many different ancient cultures.
Lisa, do you yourself really believe that "repentance atones for all transgressions," as stated by Moses Maimonides, whom you quoted, with apparent favor?
Any intelligent being must have freedom of choice, in other words, a moral nature, in order to be perfect. Otherwise he would merely be a robot, or an animal.
God is perfect. Do you deny that God has freedom of choice?
Having freedom of choice is not sin. Having an experiential knowledge of sin, as we do, is the result of having excercised the free power of choice wrongly. God has the knowledge of good and evil too, but it is not through His experience, but through our experience, since He upholds our very breath. See:
"In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind." (Job 12:10)
"The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life." (Job 33:4)
"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:" (Isaiah 42:5)
"and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:" (Daniel 5:23)
If you admit that God has freedom of choice, then you must of logical necessity admit that God could choose to sin. To the Christian, Calvary is a revelation of God's final choice to refuse to embrace sin. At Calvary, God made manifest His choice to reject sin and put it from Him.
Calvary is also a revelation at one point in space and time of the pain that sin, from its inception, has caused to the heart of God. How long will we continue to subject God to the knowledge of our experience of sin, when He is utterly pure and holy, and determined to refuse sin forever?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, please stop using phrases like "to the Christian" as if your conclusion includes all of us. I know it is hard to do - I forget often myself.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Could he say "to the typical Adventist Christian"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know. Possibly. I don't know how typical those views are to Adventist Christians or how much diversity there is in Adventist views.
I should (though I know I often fail) refrain from saying things like "to all Catholics" unless I think it is pretty much core doctrine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Well for some of us Jesus was a staple belief as far back as Adam. The doctrine kept getting modified and people apostatized til Noah. Flood fixed things but it got all funny again by Abraham. Got messed up again until Moses came. And it was up and down again until by the time Jesus came Jews had an extremely mistaken view of the messiah as espoused by the Pharisees and Sadducees.
So at least for me Jesus was a restoration of many beliefs that had been misunderstood, and a fulfillment of the law of moses which was of God. The law of Moses was supposed to point the Jews towards Jesus' coming. Surprise surprise it got all mucked up again and it was not until the 1800's that things were corrected. But hey thats just one mans feelings.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Flood fixed things
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
edit: to Blackblade
But our interpretation of those beliefs is coloured by what we some of us see as the fulfillment. Even the gospels were written with the knowledge of "the end of the story".
Our interpretation(s) is not going to be the same as the interpretation of people who aren't seeing it through the same filter.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Absolutely km. As I see it, Judaism and Christianity arose out of the same tradition. That tradition was diverse enough two centuries ago that some Jews believed Jesus was both the Son of God and the Messiah while others rejected such a possibility. The group that believed Jewish traditions supported Jesus, evolved into modern day Christianity. The school who believed the Jewish traditions were incompatible with accepting Jesus, evolved into modern day Judaism. Both groups have been evolving along side each other and in response to each other for 2 thousand years so it is completely understandable that Christians and Jews understand the ancient Jewish tradition very differently.
If you believe that Jesus is the messiah promised in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, then that belief colors how you read the scriptures. You will see Jesus everywhere in those text. Similarly if you believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, this will also color your reading of the ancient texts. I have found it very interesting and often inspiring to read Jewish commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures. In doing so, I have learned alot of things which have enriched my understanding of the scriptures as a Christian but since I do accept Jesus there will always be some aspects of the Jewish view that I cannot accept. I have frequently seen how verses that Christians interpret as being prophecies of Jesus can also easily be understood in other ways. In some cases its clear that Christians have shoe horned Jesus in where he might not belong. In other cases it seems to me that Jews have squeezed him out where evidence for him is clear.
Most of the time, I find the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures to be interesting, logical and often beautiful even when it is different from my understanding. I find value in comparing the two systems of belief even though I recognize that they are not fully compatible. I have found I can learn a great deal from Judaism even if I reject some of the basic tennets.
But unfortunately, my views are quite heretical to fundamentalists in both camps. The very fact that I have used the word "interpretation" will be offensive to the most orthodox on both sides who reject the very idea that they are interpreting the written word.
If I understand Lisa correctly, she believes that the Jewish tradtions and beliefs have been preserved unchanged since the time of Moses. As a result any suggestion that Judaism has evolved over the past 2000 years in response to Christianity is heretical. If a Christian understands the Hebrew scriptures any differently than she does, she feels that they have stolen and defiled something she finds sacred.
Similarly Ron Lambert seems to believe that the scriptures can't be interpreted, that they have one clear and irrefutable meaning. Hence, anyone who disagrees is either stupid, uninformed, illogical or dishonest.
For fundamentalists, it may simply not be possible to respectfully discuss scriptural subjects with those who have essentially different views. If that's the case, those people should avoid such discussions at Hatrack because we have all agreed to show respect to each others views in this forum.
[ December 13, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Not at all rivka. As I tried to say, I do understand that you and Lisa hold theological views that are very close but In my experience you have nearly always shown respect to those with different views (religious and otherwise) and Lisa has nearly never done the same.
Not long ago, Lisa was vehement that I was "antihuman" (her exact word) because I challenged her views on private property rights and she wouldn't even admit that she was being insulting. I have never seen you behave in such a manner, rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok.
It seemed like you were rejecting what Lisa was saying as well as how she said it. But I also believe that Christianity is a *struggles to find inoffensive word and fails* corruption of Judaism.
Then again, Mormons consider Judaism a corruption of what you see as God's word, so I guess we're even. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are interested, I can provide you an extensive bibliography. But before I undertake the effort to compile such a list honestly tell me that you would read even one reference on my list and consider the information presented with an open mind.
I can't actually believe that you are arguing the position you have taken. My claim is the most widely accepted history of Christianity accepts that it began as part of the Judaism. I know that you think this idea is false but if we can't agree that it is widely accepted by most secular, Christian and even Jewish people then you view of reality is so radically different from mine then I don't know where to begin the conversation.
I accept that Christians see Christianity as starting with Judaism. And it's certainly the case that it did get started as a Jewish sect.
But you said more than that. You said that both Judaism and Christianity are branches off of what came before, and that's certainly not true. Judaism is what it was. It did not change. And if you produce a book by secular scholars that says otherwise, I won't care. I can produce twice as many books by secular scholars that say the Bible was completely invented, as David seems to think. They're wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, do you yourself really believe that "repentance atones for all transgressions," as stated by Moses Maimonides, whom you quoted, with apparent favor?
Why would I have cited him if I didn't. Of course I do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Any intelligent being must have freedom of choice, in other words, a moral nature, in order to be perfect. Otherwise he would merely be a robot, or an animal.
God is perfect. Do you deny that God has freedom of choice?
There you go, trying to limit God by using human terms to describe Him. The question is meaningless.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Having freedom of choice is not sin.
Who said it was?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you admit that God has freedom of choice,
When you start with "If", you need to realize that when the conditional clause that follows isn't true, what comes after it is worthless. I admit nothing of the sort. The concept doesn't even apply. Choice is, by definition, a temporal concept. It denotes a change in state from not having made a decision to having made one. God isn't bound by time, and all that He does He does by His will. Choice is an inapplicable concept.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: then you must of logical necessity admit that God could choose to sin.
And see? I don't of logical necessity agree with that at all. It's utterly fanciful. The concept of sin doesn't apply to God, because it's God who defines right and wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I guess we are lucky here at Hatrack that you are not the only observant Jew who participates and your intolerant and bigoted views are balanced by others who are able to show respect to those who do not share their religious views.
So I shouldn't mention that while I frequently find her manner of speaking excessive and unnecessarily rude, and might argue a few of the points, I agree with probably 90% of the substance of her posts in this thread (let's limit that to today's and yesterday's as I don't have time to review back farther than that)?
(Of course, this post is guaranteed to get both parties ticked at me, but what else is new.)
Why do you think I'd be ticked at you for that?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that it gets problematic when, because Jesus and the early church came out of the Jewish community, we try to fit Christian concepts and theology into Jewish models. The "pegs" don't really fit into the "holes".* You have to bend and stretch both out of shape to do it. And it isn't necessary. We can acknowledge the historical roots of Jesus without it.
*Not meaning "holes" to be perjorative or to indicated that from a Jewish point of view there was something missing.
Absolutely km. As I see it, Judaism and Christianity arose out of the same tradition. That tradition was diverse enough two centuries ago
Surely you don't mean two centuries.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: that some Jews believed Jesus was both the Son of God and the Messiah while others rejected such a possibility.
It was hardly a dichotomy. There were numerous groups of Jews who thought all manner of people were the messiah around that time. As for Jews who believed in a messiah being a son of god in the way Christianity came to understand it, there were virtually no Jews who believed that. It wasn't until one man (Paul) started bringing the idea to the pagans that the pagan idea of a human as the son of a deity was grafted on.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The group that believed Jewish traditions supported Jesus, evolved into modern day Christianity. The school who believed the Jewish traditions were incompatible with accepting Jesus, evolved into modern day Judaism.
A very Christian-centric view. As though the rejection of JC was some sort of founding principle of ours. Sorry, Rabbit, but we are what we've always been. From Sinai until now, without a break. We had numerous sects arise and fall off. Christianity is only remarkable in that it's lasted as long as it did, and that can be attributed to its hybridization.
Judaism didn't evolve from Judaism. It's an unbroken chain.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Both groups have been evolving along side each other and in response to each other for 2 thousand years so it is completely understandable that Christians and Jews understand the ancient Jewish tradition very differently.
That must be a very comforting thing for you to believe. Shame it isn't true at all. You broke away from us. We didn't "diverge".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you believe that Jesus is the messiah promised in the ancient Hebrew scriptures, then that belief colors how you read the scriptures. You will see Jesus everywhere in those text. Similarly if you believe that Jesus was not the Messiah, this will also color your reading of the ancient texts.
We read them in the context set by their authors.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If I understand Lisa correctly, she believes that the Jewish tradtions and beliefs have been preserved unchanged since the time of Moses. As a result any suggestion that Judaism has evolved over the past 2000 years in response to Christianity is heretical.
Only coming from a Jew. From a non-Jew, it's only untrue.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If a Christian understands the Hebrew scriptures any differently than she does, she feels that they have stolen and defiled something she finds sacred.
<nod> Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: For fundamentalists, it may simply not be possible to respectfully discuss scriptural subjects with those who have essentially different views. If that's the case, those people should avoid such discussions at Hatrack because we have all agreed to show respect to each others views in this forum.
Whoa, excellent curveball, Rabbit. But... no.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
-"No, it is not possible." -"No, I should/will NOT avoid such discussions." -"No, we have not agreed to that respect."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hey, DB, nice to see you around. Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Thanks, twink.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
-"No, it is not possible." -"No, I should/will NOT avoid such discussions." -"No, we have not agreed to that respect."
No, I disagree with her entire chain of reasoning. That I disagree with her conclusions is almost a side issue.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
BTW, whether you call it divergence or schism or breaking away, the fact is that Christianity is a result of Judaism's bifurcation in the late first and second centuries CE. Just like Protestantism is a result of a similar bifurcation. Catholics like to say Protestants broke away, too. It's all the same, however. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it not so. Early Christians, before Paul, were Jews who believed the Messiah had come. Christianity's later expansion does nothing to negate that, nor do their small numbers make the fact of this bifurcation any less salient to Rabbit's points...
[edit]their small numbers= the fact that only a small number of 1st century Jews believed the Christian "heresy"[/edit]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, when I state a theological proposition unique to Seventh-day Adventists, I say so. When I say something like "to a Christian" I am speaking of mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant theology. Some of you may be unaware of what this theological thinking consists of. But I doubt if Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, et al., would disagree with the basic form of my soteriology (the study of how Christ saves us). They would at least recognize the Paulline sources of my concepts. I try to put these concepts in a clear form, stated plainly, without theological buzzwords.
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I do acknowledge my indebtedness to the great Protestant theologians of history. I especially admire Luther and Wesley and Calvin, though I do not agree with them in everything (especially with Calvin's views about predestination). They laid a foundation I consider worthy to build upon.
If you think something I say about the Atonement of Christ seems strange, I suggest you ask your pastor (assuming he has a seminary education) and see if he thinks what I am saying is so alien. Even most Catholic priests will understand what I am saying, even where it diverges from Catholic views.
I am trying to help people understand the substance of theological thought. Often I state things in philosophical terms that are more familiar to people than theological formulations.
This is also why I am so interested in what Lisa has to say, since she is the most extremely conservative Jewish thinker I have encountered, and I suspect that most of what she has heard from Christians in the past was simplistic and jargonistic. Most of her response seems like blind denial, which is disappointing, since I wish she would think about what I am saying more. But when she equivocates about the power of choice itself, so that she can claim that asking if God has the power of choice is a meaningless question, I come away wondering if we are really communicating.
But it is not for Lisa only that I post these things, of course. To a lesser extent I have some interest in what Mormons may think of the concepts I set forth, since I know that in many respects they diverge from orthodox Protestant theology, but I am not sure how far. But I think even mainline Christians may do well to consider in more depth the basic teachings of Christianity, which sad to say, most church members do not know, having been nurtured by pastors who merely give quaint homilies rather than preach Scripture. That is a personal gripe, I admit, but I do feel that the majority of preachers (pastors and priests) are failing to feed their flocks properly.
There is real thoughtful substance to Biblical Christian teaching, that is worth exploring. I believe it is possible to study deeper and ever deeper into the science of salvation, and ever discover new things, new insights, new revelations of the character of God. This is a study that may well go on for eternity by the Redeemed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Using "Christian" and meaning only "mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant" is already pretty misleading, don't you think? You admit that it diverges from Catholic views. So, again. Please be more specific when assigning viewpoints.
And what you say regarding the atonement, doesn't sound strange or even unfamiliar. I just don't agree with it. Nor do many Christians. Don't mistake my disagreement with ignorance. There are plenty of people who have studied as much about their faith as you do about yours and have reached different conclusions.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The most likely explanation logically is that the global Flood of Genesis actually occurred...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is also why I am so interested in what Lisa has to say, since she is the most extremely conservative Jewish thinker I have encountered, and I suspect that most of what she has heard from Christians in the past was simplistic and jargonistic. Most of her response seems like blind denial, which is disappointing, since I wish she would think about what I am saying more.
Half of what you say is bald assertions. To which you get nothing but a bald (though certainly not blind) denial. And the other half of what you say makes no sense. Maybe it's because you think everything is so clear to you, but you either leave things out of your arguments, or you're just being illogical.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But when she equivocates about the power of choice itself, so that she can claim that asking if God has the power of choice is a meaningless question, I come away wondering if we are really communicating.
I didn't equivocate. You anthropomorphized. What you said made as much sense as the old chestnut about God making a rock so heavy that He Himself cannot lift it. It's an artifact of language that means nothing. God having the ability to choose also means nothing.
Though even if it meant something (which would require a deity who isn't omnipotent and omniscient, but hey, just for the sake of argument, right?), the idea of God sinning is a non-starter, because God decides what sin is in the first place.
You insist on putting your own limitations on God, which I can't imagine is appropriate even in your religion.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But it is not for Lisa only that I post these things, of course.
Gawd, Ron. Don't post them for me at all.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Ron, I'm echoing what kmbboots says: "to the Christian" does not equal "to the mainstream, historic, orthodox Protestant." I'm Catholic - of the mainstream, historic, orthodox sort - and you do not represent my views at all. Much of what you say is indeed comprehensible to me, but I still disagree with it. Please be more specific when you post - perhaps say "to the modern Seventh-day Adventist" instead.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I was really good friends with an Adventist from South Africa (wrote a book on prophecy that Ron would salivate over), and he had a similar unintended arrogance (which a lot of denominations share) that his particular iteration of Christianity fixed all the appalling aberrations that have sprung up over the last couple of millennia.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Eaguae, all your saying in response to Ron is "no its not!" Of course, he will say, yes it is. And it will go back and forth. As a Mormon I have been there before about the nature of Christianity. It isn't that either of you are wrong as much as you have started a discussion that is harder than just "but Catholics believe and Seventh-day Adventists believe." In fact, I would have to say that the question of "what do Christians believe" is at the heart of centuries of splits and denominational seperations.
My point is that it seems everyone is tilting at definitional windmills. Before you can answer what do Christians believe it might be you have to answer what is a Christian?
Note: I don't think there really is much of a hard and fast rule answer.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:But I doubt if Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann, et al., would disagree with the basic form of my soteriology
Those three don't even agree with each other on the basic form of soteriology.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Occasional, I can't speak for Eaquae Legit, but I don't have a problem with Ron having his beliefs or stating his beliefs even though I think they are, for the most part, whacky. I do have a problem with him stating them as beliefs that are held by Christians in general.
If I posted that Christians think that coffee-drinking is fine*, I would hope that you would correct me.
If Ron wants to state what Adventists believe, I will gladly let other Adventists shoulder the burden of correcting him. As a Christian, I feel that I am responsible for making it clear that his beliefs are not shared by all of us.
*what I hope is a harmless example.
edit to add: Hey, dkw! Good to see you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"If I posted that Christians think that coffee-drinking is fine*, I would hope that you would correct me"
Frankly, I would agree with you. Of course, that is considered to me such a minor difference between Mormons and other Christians (I asume that is what you are refering to) that it doesn't even come up on my definition of Christian radar screen. Of course, I would have a problem if you said, "anyone who doesn't think drinking coffee is fine is not a Christian."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps I used too harmless an example. Replace "coffee drinking is fine" with "the only valid scripture is that which was authorized by the Council of Nicea."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I would say, historically that has been true for much of Christian history - and even for most Christians today. In other words, beliefs held by Christians in general. What I wouldn't say is that has always been the case or that every single Christian believes this. Then again, at what point does a definition become meaningless?
Look, I understand perfectly well that it can be easy to exclude some because of percieved ideas of what "Christians" believe. I also understand the need to extend those ideas to be more inclusive of plurality beliefs. That is why I said the whole discussion is tilting at windmills. It has never been resolved and perhaps never will be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But would you let the statement stand without qualifications?
I think we are talking past each other - or I am misunderstanding you. My problem with Ron was that he was making generalizations about Christian beliefs that were untrue. By saying "Christians believe" he was giving the impression that certain things are believed by all Christians, not just by some Christians.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Flood fixed things
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
And I meant it solved the corruption of the doctrine, I am sure you of all people can appreciate why its a bad thing for folks to create their own dogmas and pass them off as God's word.
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Let me explain what everyone is saying about what Ron is saying.
Ron states X is true for everyone and should be obvious.
The agnostics and aethists say, Um, its not obvious and we don't see how it is true. Please quit messing with Science/history/languages
Ron replies, In Daniel (or some other book that is both Old Testament and Torah), it clearly proves X.
Where Lisa and others of the Jewish faith say, It does not prove that. It does not say that. Please quit messing with my faith.
Ron replies, Well all Christians obviously believe Y which proves Daniel said what I said he said to mean that X is true.
Where a lot of Christians look confused at each other and say, we don't believe that. Please quit messing with our faith.
Now Ron replied with, if you study theology of the Christian faith than you will see that everyone agrees with Z which means we all beleive in Y that proves my points in Daniel which proves--what was I proving again?
Now DKW, a studier of theology of the Christian faith replies, not so.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Flood fixed things
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Since at least 20% of the people in question would be children under 10, yes, I would indeed condemn such a god. As for the propaganda about hating their own blood, I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Flood fixed things
Did it, indeed? You think killing off 99.999% of humanity is a reasonable fix to problems of interpretation? It didn't even have the virtue of being a 'Final' solution!
Ill leave the justification of the act to God because according to him everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
Are you seriously condemning God if he did in fact kill off 99.9% of the human race, even though he deemed all but .01% a lost cause? Do you know something He didn't?
Since at least 20% of the people in question would be children under 10, yes, I would indeed condemn such a god. As for the propaganda about hating their own blood, I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Except that if your parents, your neighbors, and everyone around you is busy killing each other why the devil would God want his children to have to suffer being born into such an environment? Much better to setup a situation where your children can actually have a chance at living a life with joy.
All the children at that time who were 10 or younger are certainly outnumbered by the legions that would be born in such terrible conditions, unless something drastic was done.
But again I that is my perspective, I'd much rather leave the reasoning to God, it certainly was not MY choice to send a flood.
edit:
quote: I would certainly claim such a thing too if I were guilty of genocide.
Well its nice to know that you think genocide is universally evil. Never pictures you for a disciple of Kant KOM.
double edit: You seem to be forgetting that if there is a God and an afterlife that is infinitely more expansive then this life, makes death quite a bit more insignificant.
[ December 14, 2006, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Something drastic... how about appearing in the sky above earth and saying, "Hey! Knock this crap off before I kill you all!"
A little advance warning would've been nice...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Except that if your parents, your neighbors, and everyone around you is busy killing each other why the devil would God want his children to have to suffer being born into such an environment?
You have only the accused's word for this. Moreover, the accused claims to be omnipotent, and at one time apparently was able to kill only firstborn sons of a particular ethnicity over a large area. It could hardly be very difficult to kill only the guilty ones, then. And, by the way, the accused apparently has absolutely no problem with children being born into areas ravaged by disease, hunger, and parasites.
Further, I think you would not accept any such argument in a contemporary abortion debate, so why would you accept it here? Or do you think that abortion is justified if the fetus would grow up to have a really terrible and unloved life?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
KOM: Of course I only have the accused's word, if I thought God was capable of being dishonest I probably would not worship him as the paragon of all that is good would I? Whose word do you have? I have already admitted that I am leaving the complete explanation to God, all you get from me is my opinion.
quote: and at one time apparently was able to kill only firstborn sons of a particular ethnicity over a large area.
I think you mean CHOSE to do things that way, there is no evidence of powerlessness on God's part. You are also assuming that God killed all the first born sons for the exact same reason he killed everyone in the flood save Noah. I have absolutely no evidence of God's motives when it came to Moses and his dealings in Egypt. But I do have God making statements regarding why he flooded the earth.
Ditto to your argument about disease, hunger, parasites. All I can surmise is that God wishes to give men free will as much as possible, and when humanity it totally steeped in evil like in Noah's day he had no other recourse then to start over. For whatever reason that situation has not existed since then.
OK KOM lets say the world was in fact as the scripture say it is and everyone in the world save Noah's family were as evil as evil can be. What is your solution?
edit: sorry,
quote:t could hardly be very difficult to kill only the guilty ones, then
Which is exactly what God did. Would you expect him to simply off the parents and let the children all starve to death, or get eaten by wild beasts? How could anybody live a happy life without any parents or neighbors nearby to help them as they grew?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
Like we have again? Assuming a literal interpretation, surely God knew that this wouldn't work. That is was only a temporary fix.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
kmboots, religiously Mormons believe we are pretty close to the same situation and getting ripe for destruction. In fact, that is what the Book of Mormon is about - the more wicked society becomes the more it will be wiped out one way or another. It was a temporary fix to save as many as possible before the next temporary fix. At least that is how I see it.
As for the relapse that you and BlackB are discussing, its the difference between a relapse of one generation and a relapse of several generations.
As for what God does, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think you mean CHOSE to do things that way, there is no evidence of powerlessness on God's part.
I think you misread my statement - I didn't mean that your god was able only to kill a few people, but that it was able to kill an extremely specific subset of people. I was indicating power, not powerlessness.
quote:Which is exactly what God did. Would you expect him to simply off the parents and let the children all starve to death, or get eaten by wild beasts?
This is the god that allegedly fed the Israelites on manna in the desert for forty years; supplying some loaves and fishes should not be too difficult.
You are forgetting that you are dealing with an omnipotent god here; there is no difficulty it cannot overcome. Therefore, if it kills innocent children, it is not because it has no choice in the matter; it is precisely because it chooses to kill those children. You may, therefore, argue that such a choice was righteous and just, and good luck to you; or you may argue that the children were not so innocent and therefore deserved their fate (truly, a disgusting argument, but a logical possibility); but any merely practical difficulty such as this is a non-starter.
quote:I have already admitted that I am leaving the complete explanation to God, all you get from me is my opinion.
Since it's you I'm arguing with, I can pass on the god-explanation, thanks, at least until your god becomes a member of Hatrack. I'm not interested in how your god justifies itself; I'm interested in how you justify it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: DB: Do you know whether the people of earth would have listened? Seems at best they would have stopped temporarily and simply relapsed back into killing.
Like we have again? Assuming a literal interpretation, surely God knew that this wouldn't work. That is was only a temporary fix.
Occasional did a pretty good job of summing up. Though I would argue that we are not even close to having EVERY single human being save a family of about 8, wanting every other human being dead.
If the end of the world takes place I believe there are going to be millions of people saved, not just eight. Shoot even folks like KOM who I have every reason to believe honestly does not believe in God does not qualify as, "ripe for destruction."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:As for what God does, He can do whatever He wants. He is God.
Certainly it has the power to do so; but that does not make its every act just and righteous. Power does not justice make. If you are indeed arguing that an act is righteous, independent of what the act actually is, just because your god committed it, then you are deep into the Fuhrer-fallacy and might as well worship Satan.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: This is the god that allegedly fed the Israelites on manna in the desert for forty years; supplying some loaves and fishes should not be too difficult.
You are forgetting that you are dealing with an omnipotent god here; there is no difficulty it cannot overcome. Therefore, if it kills innocent children, it is not because it has no choice in the matter; it is precisely because it chooses to kill those children. You may, therefore, argue that such a choice was righteous and just, and good luck to you; or you may argue that the children were not so innocent and therefore deserved their fate (truly, a disgusting argument, but a logical possibility); but any merely practical difficulty such as this is a non-starter.
"Man does not live on bread alone." KOM. If God is simply feeding them and tutoring himself all the time their freewill is tampered with. Perhaps God took your idea to heart and decided he could raise the children better himself. Were I a child of that time I would certainly accept the pains of drowning for the chance to actually live a real existence.
You will note the New Testament states that Jesus during the 3 days between crucifixion and resurrection visited the folks who died in the time of Noah and could not learn the gospel and personally taught them.
quote: Since it's you I'm arguing with, I can pass on the god-explanation, thanks, at least until your god becomes a member of Hatrack.
I lol'd KOM, just wanted you to realize that I might MISUNDERSTAND God's reasoning or motives. Ill have to continue this conversation later as I need to go pick up my wife.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You hear that, KoM? Even dastardly folks like people who don't believe in God might not be ripe for destruction!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Gosh! Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, don't it, Tom?
quote:If God is simply feeding them and tutoring himself all the time their freewill is tampered with. Perhaps God took your idea to heart and decided he could raise the children better himself. Were I a child of that time I would certainly accept the pains of drowning for the chance to actually live a real existence.
Easy to say sitting in front of a keyboard with no chance of drowning in the immediate future, not to mention killing off your parents. Oddly enough, even violent people are loved by their children. The freewill argument applies just as well to taking children into heaven as to feeding them on earth, if not more so. And, dude, killing them doesn't interfere with free will? If there's any more ultimate interference than that, it's sure lost on me. Anyway, why not just blip the parents around to be nice kind robots who would raise their children well? Sure, their free will is gone, but then again the god is about to kill them and throw them into hell, which also kind of interferes with their choices. That leaves the innocents unharmed and much better off.
Again: Your god obviously had any number of alternatives. If it killed children, it is precisely because it chose to do so. All the reasons you have raised thus far for thinking it a just choice have been, frankly, rather silly.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I guess I am in the camp where death is not considered the worst thing in the world. It hurts, but its not the worst. If God wants to kill innocent people along with the wicked that is His obligation. More than likely they will recieved a better reward than this life that makes their temporary death and pain nothing. As life teaches us with or without the flood, the innocent suffer along with the wicked in all natural destructions. That doesn't mean He is wicked. It means He cares about other things.
P.S. For Mormons Hell means something entirely different than the traditional view. That might have gotten you confused a bit. Not that I think it matters to you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I was not suggesting atheist are "dastardly" I doubt you believe I was, merely that the a common traditional fallacy that non believers go straight to hell is not the case. I didn't want to be accused of believing that so I answered the possibility in advance. Was I wrong to have done so?
KOM: I don't think you understand the Mormon doctrines concerning the afterlife. I believe that when folks die they life in a spirit world. It is there that folks who never knew the truth are instructed as to its particulars and given a legitimate choice between good and evil. I have no idea what it looks like, what its like to live there, only that God doesn't run around there just as he doesn't run around on earth.
I didn't say God DOESN'T EVER interfere with freewill, I said he is loathe to do so. In order to salvage the fair choice of billions of people God eliminated a much smaller group of people who would have unfortunately continued on in their evil ways with no reason to believe their children would be raised knowing what righteousness even was.
Again you seemed to miss the part about Jesus preaching to the folks who died during Noah's time. It says nothing about sending them all straight to hell in fact it says the opposite. Its just as reasonable to assume that if humanity reached a point where 99.9% of folks were doing only evil that it was a long process before completion, its just as likely that the children we mentioned had parents, grandparents, great grandparents who were all short changed by their ancestor. Who knows how far back the problem was.
You need to understand that even somebody who is intentionally wicked, to a Mormon that does not necessarily mean an eternity in hell. According to Mormons God may judge you but its all up to YOU where you wish to end up. Folks who just were not trying would not want to live in heaven as they would feel ashamed, they would much rather life in a lesser kingdom with others who are of similar character. I've told you this before God does not send people to either heaven or hell, the entire human race cannot be sorted that easily.
I hope that answers your scenarios, so far I am unconvinced of any alternatives to God's plan you have suggested.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Um, as far as I know (in reference to my previous post) God has not, at any time, appeared simultaneously to all human beings and told us to knock it off. I have a feeling that he'd get our attention through such a strategy in a way that, assuming he exists, he hasn't achieved to this point.
And please, don't spout the whole free will thing to me... his appearance would not interfere with our free will any more than his killing 99.999999% of humanity, or expelling the only humans from paradise, or sending his son/incarnating himself. When you pile oral tradition upon oral tradition, however, this is the sort of fallacious view you derive that God has some bizarre, nebulous plan for humanity that entails apparent cruelty, disingenuousness and obscurantism. Blech.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To me, there is something insidiously evil about the idea that the real problem with an incerdibly immoral society is that God will punish you for it.
If there really were a society in which everyone ran around killing everyone else and everyone hated their own blood, there would be no need to send a flood to wipe them out. All God would have to do is give sanctuary to the righteous and wait for the inevitible catastrophic collapse of that society. De-coupling the pretty basic cause and effect chain here so that potential success or failure is a function of whether God is pissed at you or not makes no sene to me and is one of those aspects that makes the OT God an evil one to me.
I've got plenty of other problems with the implications of this myth, but I am also troubled by how stupid it is as a literal story where you've got a self-sustaining society like this.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Something drastic... how about appearing in the sky above earth and saying, "Hey! Knock this crap off before I kill you all!"
A little advance warning would've been nice...
Actually, God did warn people. Just because it's not written there doesn't mean He didn't do that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
DB: What Lisa said. But based on scriptural history there HAVE been incidents where God told people in essence to KNOCK IT OFF and it often has no effect, in fact the people become more evil as now they are guilty of ignoring God to His face. But then again justifying the point with histories you are not aware of, much less believe seems kind of futile.
Mr S:
quote:f there really were a society in which everyone ran around killing everyone else and everyone hated their own blood, there would be no need to send a flood to wipe them out. All God would have to do is give sanctuary to the righteous and wait for the inevitible catastrophic collapse of that society.
Ergo Noah's family in an ark in the middle of a flood that caused the catastrophic collapse of the evil societies.
quote:I've got plenty of other problems with the implications of this myth, but I am also troubled by how stupid it is as a literal story where you've got a self-sustaining society like this.
Alittle more respect please, I'm discussing your points without calling any of them stupid. If I can let you try to outsmart God without being rude, you can please allow me to defend Him without calling the fact that I do "stupid."
I disagree with you, I think that human beings are quite capable of gross degeneracy and can still survive. Unfortunately it's not God's agenda that men live on earth merely to see how long they can manage it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:Ergo Noah's family in an ark in the middle of a flood that caused the catastrophic collapse of the evil societies.
And that's my problem. The flood was completely unnecessary to destroy the society described by people here. It would have died out in a generation (assuming that it was ever even possible for it to form), with no divine intervention necessary.
While societies can support a certain amount of degeneracy, complex ones such as the one described in the Noah myth cannot survive with total, unredeemable evil from all members of society going on. It is completely impossible. This is the group dynamicist's version of the earth being flat.
Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mr S: So you think its better that all the people take hundreds of years to totally wipe each other out before God starts over? What evidence do you have that there would not have simply been remnants geographically to far apart from each other to really interact. You could still have units localized in some random jungle continuing living in their iniquity.
quote: Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
If your view point is so obviously true to you perhaps you should consider that I have probably thought my viewpoint over just as long as you have and yet do not find it stupid.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Let me explain what everyone is saying about what Ron is saying.
Ron states X is true for everyone and should be obvious.
The agnostics and aethists say, Um, its not obvious and we don't see how it is true. Please quit messing with Science/history/languages
Ron replies, In Daniel (or some other book that is both Old Testament and Torah), it clearly proves X.
Where Lisa and others of the Jewish faith say, It does not prove that. It does not say that. Please quit messing with my faith.
Ron replies, Well all Christians obviously believe Y which proves Daniel said what I said he said to mean that X is true.
Where a lot of Christians look confused at each other and say, we don't believe that. Please quit messing with our faith.
Now Ron replied with, if you study theology of the Christian faith than you will see that everyone agrees with Z which means we all beleive in Y that proves my points in Daniel which proves--what was I proving again?
Now DKW, a studier of theology of the Christian faith replies, not so.
Dan
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:So you think its better that all the people take hundreds of years to totally wipe each other out before God starts over? What evidence do you have that there would not have simply been remnants geographically to far apart from each other to really interact. You could still have units localized in some random jungle continuing living in their iniquity.
You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children. Killing your progeny is a real good way not to be around any more. And isolated people don't survive.
BB, I really don't care how long you say you've thought about this (edit: and actually, how much consideration have you really given to the plausibility of the societies described in the Noah story?) . That's never been something I've put a lot of stock in in terms of whether a belief could be true or not. Some of the people who claimed that they knew the earth was flat thought a lot about it. People thought a lot about a lot of things that turned out to be completely and totally wrong.
What you are claiming is not in any way, shape, or form possible under the way the world currently works. If you want to say that God changed how basic fundamental concepts worked between now and then, I can't argue with that. But the Noah story describing a historical situation in the same world we currently live in is not possible.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Trying to pass this myth off as any sort of realistic description of history is like trying to claim that a child's crayon drawing is actually a photograph. And, I really don't know a better description for that besides stupid.
And yet it actually happened that way. So I guess it isn't stupid at all.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I know. And the world is flat.
---
edit: I'm a huge fan and student of mythologies. They provide a completely necessary structure to unfixed aspects of the world and allow for the construction of complex structures and systems of thought. I may personally find many aspects of the mythology of the OT to be evil, but that's just my opinion. You do damage to this exteremely important aspect of myths, as well as to so many other things, when you try to assert that they are literally true, especially in the face of their sheer impossibility.
Regular impossibility I don't really have a problem with. Who am I to say that miracles don't happen? However, when the incredilby simplistic, non-focused on background of the myth that you are claiming is true is literally impossible, I think you need to rethink your "This actually happened approach."
[ December 15, 2006, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps some here would appreciate it if I were to preface some of my remarks by saying, "This is A Christian viewpoint," or "This is a viewpoint held by many Christians," or "Anyone who reads the Scripture can see for themselves this is what it plainly says" (pardon the exasperation), though I am sure many would take exception even to that. I do present arguments in support of the positions I take, you know--usually plain statements of Scripture that directly speak to the subject at hand.
***************
Concerning the cavil some have raised that God did not adequately warn the Antedeluvians about the coming Flood: The Bible indicates that Noah preached of the impending Flood for at least 100 years. And he was a man who had great status, as one of the very aged people on earth, and associated with him were others like Methuselah, who lived longer than any man ever had before. Noah and his sons and friends like Methuselah (who died the year of the Flood) were busy building a huge boat way out on dry land, for over 100 years. This had to serve as a constant testimonial.
Personally, I think that probably many people were impressed by Noah's preaching, and would have joined him, but they were forcibly restrained, perhaps even killed, by their peers. The Bible says that one of the reasons why God brought the Flood was because "the earth was filled with violence." I would suggest that was violence against the people who would be faithful to God. This is the kind of violence that has always been most offensive to God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children.
I know that's been suggested, but I don't think it's necessarily true.
Regardless, God was in a position to know that the proper thing to do at the time was to start over. Stop backseat driving. It's particularly silly when the event happened so long ago.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What you are claiming is not in any way, shape, or form possible under the way the world currently works.
Maybe. But who says that everything then was the way it is now? I know you'd like to think that, because it makes the world a lot more comfortable. It means that you can rely on the world being tomorrow pretty much the way it is today. That's a pleasant thought.
But people were also living several centuries back then. So clearly the world was not the same then as it is now.
Your argument has nothing to do with the specific stories in the Bible. It is 100% "I insist that the world has always operated according to the rules I see now". If you accept that assertion, then there was no Flood, Noah wasn't 600 years old, there were no Plagues in Egypt, no Revelation... basically, it's all a crock. Clearly. That follows logically from your premise.
Without that premise, though, you don't really have a lot of basis for your rude dismissal of the Flood. So rather than bash, why not discuss the underlying dispute?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you want to say that God changed how basic fundamental concepts worked between now and then, I can't argue with that.
Indeed.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But the Noah story describing a historical situation in the same world we currently live in is not possible.
No one said otherwise.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The world today is substantially different from the way it was before the Flood, but still that does not mean there are not valid parallels to be drawn. It is the same human nature, the same principle of sin and rebellion against God, and the same righteousness of God being manifested in His agents that we see in contention throughout all history.
Bible prophecy (in Revelation 9:15-18; 13:15; as well as other places) indicates that in the final time of test in the time of the end, there will be a vast military campaign waged against all who would be faithful to God. And Genesis 6:11 says of the antedeluvians: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence." If the earth being "filled with violence" was part of the reason why God ended the antedeluvian world, then a similar thing, where the earth is filled with volence will be one of the reasons why God will bring an end to the world for a second time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's one of the most obvious reasons that we're dealing with fiction, Ron. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Perhaps some here would appreciate it if I were to preface some of my remarks by saying, "This is A Christian viewpoint," or "This is a viewpoint held by many Christians," or "Anyone who reads the Scripture can see for themselves this is what it plainly says" (pardon the exasperation), though I am sure many would take exception even to that. I do present arguments in support of the positions I take, you know--usually plain statements of Scripture that directly speak to the subject at hand.
That would be better. I would prefer "some" to "many" in the second example and I appreciate the emphasis on the "A" in the first example. As for the third example, I would say that Scripture isn't always as "plain" as you make it out to be, so it would depend on what part of Scripture was being discussed.
********************
For the record: To me, the concept of God wiping everyone out in order to "start over" is incompatible with a God that loves each of us as a parent. A Christian view is that the flood was a natural or regional occurance that got worked into the mythology of various cultures.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And Genesis 6:11 says of the antedeluvians: "Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence." If the earth being "filled with violence" was part of the reason why God ended the antedeluvian world, then a similar thing, where the earth is filled with volence will be one of the reasons why God will bring an end to the world for a second time.
It might interest you to know that the Hebrew says the world was filled with Hamas. That's the word that's translated as "violence". Ironic, no?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I know. And the world is flat.
Actually, it's not.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: edit: I'm a huge fan and student of mythologies. They provide a completely necessary structure to unfixed aspects of the world and allow for the construction of complex structures and systems of thought. I may personally find many aspects of the mythology of the OT to be evil, but that's just my opinion. You do damage to this exteremely important aspect of myths, as well as to so many other things, when you try to assert that they are literally true, especially in the face of their sheer impossibility.
Because you've defined them as myths. <shrug> Good for you. But that's just an assertion. At most, it's a conclusion from your axiom that the world is the same now as it was then. But why do you think anyone who doesn't share your premises is going to accept the conclusions you draw from them?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Regular impossibility I don't really have a problem with. Who am I to say that miracles don't happen? However, when the incredilby simplistic, non-focused on background of the myth that you are claiming is true is literally impossible, I think you need to rethink your "This actually happened approach."
Thanks for the advice.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, I have been saying for many years that fiction that faithfully presents the spiritual realities of human nature, sin, and righteousness, is fiction that tells the truth in the broad sense, and at least has a chance to be worthwhile reading even for the most conservative religious person, in my view (some fundamentalists believe that fiction itself is bad, but I differ). On the other hand, there is fiction that does not tell the truth, but lies about life's verities. An example I used in the past was the old Gor novels by John Norman, which presented as if it were true the idea that women secretly want and need to be enslaved. These novels were cited in at least one court case I heard of where someone was being prosecuted for kidnapping and chaining up women and abusing them. Apparently the miscreant claimed he had been influenced by these novels. I do not remember how the case came out. But those are definitely books I would not want to be available in my community's school library.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: You'd have maybe isolated people, but units? No, they hated and killed their children. Killing your progeny is a real good way not to be around any more. And isolated people don't survive.
Who said they hated their children across the board?
Perhaps clans were concerned with nothing but the destruction of all neighboring clans by the time of the flood. Perhaps children grew up in sin and it was common to kill your own parents, you can always kill your parents and still perpetuate.
I'm not arguing that there is a long term sustainability in a world that is "filled with violence." But I think you are mistaken in thinking that a violent culture can only survive one generation.
If I wish to kill everyone except MAYBE my wife and at least one of my children, I am STILL a violent person, living in gross wickedness.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Who said they hated their children across the board?
You did, right here:
quote:everyone except Noah and his family "hated their own blood" and "delighted in killing one another."
And if they didn't, why then that's just regular ol' human killing of other tribes, and clearly not a problem.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
[No one has actually addressed the fact that God himself has never appeared like in the clouds simultaneously to all human beings and told them to knock their stupid crap off... people preaching about it and telling others what God supposedly said could obviously be the work of crackpots, so you are expecting them to believe second hand info rather than God's direct dialogue with humanity...]
I'm willing for a second to posit the truth of the Flood, but nothing that anyone's said makes me feel that God was justified in doing what he did, especially as he knew in advance that humanity would end up that way if he created it, and he could have tweaked events so no Flood was needed. It makes God seem petty, cruel and frankly short-sighted, which doesn't quite jibe with what Jews and Christian would have me believe about him.
Going back to my view, that the Flood is a mythological event, God's behavior in that tale and throughout the Bible is inconsistent, and bespeaks the cobbled-together nature of the work itself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: Even if some of the people killed their own children, that does not mean it was how EVERY single family unit was. There are plenty of niches in a family. Even if you hate your children you can simply abuse them so that they will continue your line but not kill them. You may or may not be successful in the attempt. Surely you can agree that "hating your own blood" does not neccesarily mean JUST children.
quote: 'm willing for a second to posit the truth of the Flood, but nothing that anyone's said makes me feel that God was justified in doing what he did, especially as he knew in advance that humanity would end up that way if he created it, and he could have tweaked events so no Flood was needed. It makes God seem petty, cruel and frankly short-sighted, which doesn't quite jibe with what Jews and Christian would have me believe about him.
Again you may call it short sightedness I see it as infinitely LONG sightedness. You keep saying, "Well if God can do all that CAN be done, why didn't he just tweek things." What do you mean by that, its too generic. I've yet to hear an alternate solution that accomplishes the same end more effectively.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Again you may call it short sightedness I see it as infinitely LONG sightedness.
Sure, but you're wrong.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Again you may call it short sightedness I see it as infinitely LONG sightedness.
Sure, but you're wrong.
um... nuh uh! You're wrong!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:What do you mean by that, its too generic. I've yet to hear an alternate solution that accomplishes the same end more effectively.
Kill off the wicked adults with a good selective plague, or just, y'know, smite 'em. Send angels to feed the children until they can take care of themselves, and teach them righteousness at the same time. Ta-dah!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: That doesn't work. You can't have constant angelic administration, and shoot if they get to have it why can't I? Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together? Would you honestly prefer to remain on earth alone the rest of your days?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
By "administered to," it's worth remembering that you mean "slaughtered."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
By "administered to," it's worth remembering that you mean "slaughtered."
Tom I'm tiring of your "looking to be offended/offensiveness." Maybe you are not trying to come off that way but your last few posts have been snarky to me.
For the third time, the people were not killed and shipped off to hell. They were taken to the afterlife where they were ultimately taught what they were completely ignorant of. Its pretty hard to learn about, "God is love and he is sending his son to die for your sins" when you have to focus on who is coming to kill you all the time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They were taken to the afterlife where they were ultimately taught what they were completely ignorant of.
But if this is no worse than being alive, why do we bother to live in the first place?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They were taken to the afterlife where they were ultimately taught what they were completely ignorant of.
But if this is no worse than being alive, why do we bother to live in the first place?
Well for one thing to as much as is possible, decide in an unbiased way whether we prefer to live virtuously or otherwise. There is also the unrelated yet significant concept that to become like God a soul needs to obtain a physical body. But I'd rather not discuss that particular doctrine as its quite complicated and more suited to another thread.
We are being tested based on what truth we DO posses, so that we might have joy in our choices or sorrow, depending on which we elect to have.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
BB, assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
DB:
quote:Seems pretty... er, silly.
lol
They demonstrated an unwillingness to be taught as Noah and others were time and time again rejected by them. It was a long process that lead the entire human race to become so entirely evil. Here are some verses,
Read from verse 14 until the end of the chapter. I know its a bit, but I think it will show you a dynamic of God rarely seen in other scriptures.
I think that will help you understand my perspective on this matter.
Lisa: Don't be confused by the link, its a long excerpt from Joseph Smith's translation of the book of Genesis. The text will not agree with your traditional translation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: BB, assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
You sound like someone asking Minnesota Fats why he's shooting the cue ball in that direction when the balls he called are way over here.
When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that. He did it because it's for the best. Because that's how the optimum result is arrived at. Because doing it your way might have gotten some short term gains, but would have caused worse things later. Whatever.
And to reiterate what Occasional said above, this life isn't all there is. To you, people dying is the worst thing, because this is all there is. To us, this is a tiny fraction of the whole story. That doesn't mean that we don't treasure our life here, but when you start talking about things from the perspective of God, it's not as though it was the catastrophe that you see it as.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've got no problem with believing God created the Great Flood to wipe out civilization. Or, alternatively, that there was a Great Flood that occurred naturally along about the same time as civilization was forgetting God's ways, and that He did not stop it.
I also have no problem with believing there were pockets of civilization and righteous people that He saved.
KoM-- doctrinally speaking, from a Mormon standpoint, it was not in God's ability to send angels down to earth to diaper every little orphan, wipe every runny nose, etc. after the flood. There's the free will thing that BB mentioned-- also, in Mormon theology, angels could not (normally) possess corporeal bodies until after the ressurrection of Jesus Christ. (Moses and Elijah being exceptions-- also, not being "angels" in the classic sense of the word)
God cannot do everything that we imagine He can do.
quote:assuming this theorizing of yours about the fate of dead antediluvians is true, why not teach them here on earth rather than kill them and teach them in the spirit world? Seems pretty... er, silly.
First, I'm glad to see you back, David.
Noah DID try to teach them.
In any case, a large majority of the earth's inhabitants are going to be taught the gospel in the spirit world.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: That doesn't work. You can't have constant angelic administration, and shoot if they get to have it why can't I?
Because your parents were not so wicked as to cause the whole of humanity to be killed off. Congratulations. And you certainly can have constant angelic administration.
quote:Why are we so concerned with bringing heaven to earth for these children when it works better to simply have them and their families all administered to together?
Well, obviously you aren't particularly concerned with their fate, true. Personally, I have ethical qualms with killing off children for the deeds of their parents, on the mere grounds of convenience for me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Because your parents were not so wicked as to cause the whole of humanity to be killed off. Congratulations. And you certainly can have constant angelic administration.
So they get the angelic administration in the next life, why are you so worried about them remaining on earth? And yes I can get constant angelic administration if I am virtuous enough, unfortunately that is not the case. You seem to be arguing that if my parents become sinful enough then I get the BONUS of angelic administration. By that logic I could justify evil behavior as it would insure my own children's happiness in the long run.
quote: Well, obviously you aren't particularly concerned with their fate, true. Personally, I have ethical qualms with killing off children for the deeds of their parents, on the mere grounds of convenience for me.
YOU have qualms, but from my perspective what is so bad about God mercifully stopping the madness before any more future children were harmed? You are trying to prove to me that God made a mistake based on MY understanding of the situation. If I was in your position and none of this was a given of course I could very easily reach the same conclusion you have.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa:
quote:When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that.
Not a good parenting technique, btw. If I tried that with my kids ["When you know all I know, then you can ask me questions! Till then, pipe down."] I can imagine I'd be doing them a pretty big disservice. Strange that Man seems more moral than his God.
quote:To you, people dying is the worst thing, because this is all there is.
I'll refrain from wondering how you think you know what I think is the "worst thing" and simply say that you are wrong. To me, the worst thing is dedicating your life bending your knee to a being that doesn't even abide by the rules he forces you to follow. Death is just another insult in such a regime.
----- People who've asked, "What could God have 'tweaked' so as not to have a planetful of evil s.o.b.s?": He could have kept alive his personal relationship with them despite Adam and Eve's actions. He could have engineered beings that would derive less pleasure from evil. He could have sent a messiah THEN. He could inspired men in every community with direction communication rather than just one man. Heck, I could go on like this forever. And frankly, any God whose planning is so mindbendingly complex that it requires slaughter (many other passages in Tanakh/Old Testament spring to mind) and cruelty is too immoral for me to worship. This is why I have the shocking position that if I find out that good ol' Tetragrammaton is the real author of the universe, I will heroically accept hellfire or extinguishing or whatever rather than bend my knee to his despotism... I know that is harsh, but it is really how I feel. Sorry! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
Your solutions that you ratted off also make little sense. I am sure you could go on forever throwing out halfbaked ideas that sound nice but don't work. God DID keep his personal relationship alive in post eden Adam and Eve. But he cannot make us listen to him. He cannot create humans that are less disposed to seek pleasure from evil as people are people, they, like God, have their own disposition and free agency. A Messiah then? Ok Jesus comes, gets killed, ressurects, and all without instituting a church or establishing his goslep because nobody believes in him. Jesus did not MAKE people good, he could only influence them to be better. In fact you will note there were cities where he could not perform any miracles because nobody had faith in him.
You keep saying to the effect, "Well God could have just forced them to be good." If you can have entities like the devil who hate God to his face, and entities like Jesus we can all fit in there somewhere in the middle. If you don't think that people can choose evil so completely that they would reject God to his face, I really think you and I have different perspectives on human capability.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dangit. Can't stay away.
quote:People who've asked, "What could God have 'tweaked' so as not to have a planetful of evil s.o.b.s?": He could have kept alive his personal relationship with them despite Adam and Eve's actions.
What makes you think Adam and Eve had a personal relationship with God that was all that great?
I mean...events would kind of lead us to believe otherwise, wouldn't they?
What kind of relationship with God are you looking for, DB? Face to face weekly chats? Daily phone calls? Whispers during prayer time?
quote: He could have engineered beings that would derive less pleasure from evil.
In my understanding of my own religion, He couldn't. There's no way for us to be both mortal and NOT tempted by evil.
quote:He could have sent a messiah THEN.
What would this have accomplished?
quote:He could inspired men in every community with direction communication rather than just one man.
In my opinion, God did as good as He could with the materials He had on him. Of course, I take it as an a priori condition that God is just, merciful, kind and loving.
So I'm biased.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you don't think that people can choose evil so completely that they would reject God to his face, I really think you and I have different perspectives on human capability.
No kidding.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Right, I understand that LDS have defined Godhood in a way that limits his responsibility for some of these things, and that is a step in the right direction... I keep holding out for the day that you'll decide all the cruel actions attributed to God in the Old Testament have been revealed as erroneously reported...
And yes, I am saying that if God exists and he's done the stuff the Old Testament says he'd done and ordered done, then I want nothing to do with him.
Of course, I don't believe in him and doubt seriously that I'll have to face that choice, but I've got my moral code and won't break it for gods of any sort, no matter how they threaten me. Maybe for my kids, if their lives depended on it, I'd bend my ethics. But because a God says to? Pshaw.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, One thing you may not understand is that I (and David, I think) don't automatically accept that your God is good or that he always tells the truth.
If I come face to face with God and he is as many Christians seem to believe, I really hope I'll choose hell over serving him, because that would be, for me, the moral choice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, One thing you may not understand is that I (and David, I think) don't automatically accept that your God is good or that he always tells the truth.
If I come face to face with God and he is as many Christians seem to believe, I really hope I'll choose hell over serving him, because that would be the moral choice.
Ok wonderful, but when you are arguing that even taking the scriptures description of events that the flood was immoral it matters not that you don't believe in any of it in the first place.
If you accept God but don't believe he, "Always tells the truth." Well then God is not the epitome of virtue, he is simply an empowered entity whose alignment is kinda hard to put a finger on. The only reason I could find to worship such a God is I wouldn't want him to squelch me.
edit: As for choosing hell over an unjust God, its unfortunate that you are both so convinced that there is no way God could adequately explain his methodology, I certainly hope you might stick around to hear God's answers to your questions before you insist he ship you off to hell.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Well, duh! Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the subject of not bowing before an unjust god, I am not so principled as DB and Squicky: I agree that theirs would be the moral choice, but I would be willing to bend my morality that far. There comes a point when you have to bow to superior force.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Ok wonderful, but when you are arguing that even taking the scriptures description of events that the flood was immoral it matters not that you don't believe in any of it in the first place.
Except it does, because this is an active mythological structure in this world and a potential configuration for the divine. Myths have some pretty darn huge, generally unacknowledged affects on society. So, it is really important to me.
For that matter, even if I don't believe that many of the Bible stories can't be literally true, that doesn't mean that the entity that propogated them isn't God. God could exist and told those stories for reasons of his own. I'm not sure I won't come face to face with your God after I die. The myths don't have to be literally true to come from the divine.
edit: I have a very complicated conception of mythology. The short version is, the logos or meaning behind the myth is much more important than whether it actually happened. The important part for me in judging the myth, as with any story, even the ones we tell about things that we know happened, is the meaning behind the events.
I'm not actually terribly bothered by most interpretations of the Noah myth, except when it is regarded as literally true.
quote:The only reason I could find to worship such a God is I wouldn't want him to squelch me.
And he gives you things and hurts your enemies. That sums up about 3/4 of Old Testament for me. It is exactly the "Submit to me unquestioning because I have power" aspect that I find so evil.
[ December 15, 2006, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
David and MrSquicky,
My response (and the response of many Christians) is that while God doesn't change, our understanding of God changes. I can certainly believe that the writers of those Scriptures believed the mythology, or that they (as would be consistent with contemporary writing) were using metaphor.
If I believed the Noah story (and some others) as literal truth, I would be signing up to join the rebellion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
As I understand it, the devil in Mormon doctrine advocated the elimination of Free Will, which would have made it impossible to do evil. God took the opposite approach, and advocated for the doing of evil as a lesser evil than the prevention of evil.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
Otherwise, Satan is merely performing God's will. Just another stooge.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, As per our other discussion, one of my earlier heresies was the rejection of the Old Testament as Christian scripture.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I love the Old Testament. The God that is presented there is majestic and loving and just.
He is not always nice. I don't think any God worth the name can afford to be nice.
For me, the Old Testament is a strong witness of the need for a Redeemer. Moses leading the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, crossing the Red Sea, raising the brass serpent to heal them, Daniel being saved by the angel in the Lion pit, Elijah's struggles with Ahab and Jezebel-- these stories, to me, are precursors, forerunners of the struggles Christ underwent, and the struggles we undergo in letting His salvation take effect in our lives.
Further, we meet actual characters in the Old Testament. People who are flawed, like Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, even Elijah. They're shown at their best and at their very worst.
The stories of the Old Testament that are about sacrifice are the ones most important to me. Consider the sacrifice of Isaac: to me, it shows that God simultaneously requires the most dear, the most extreme, the most beautiful thing in our lives-- and that when we are willing to give it to Him, He will not strip it away from us. It is the precursor to Christ's magnificient, "And whoso shall loose his life, for my sake, shall find it."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hmmm Tom, I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too. You can't have any good if the evil option does not exist. God put folks on earth knowing many would choose evil he can see the future into the eternities. In fact he knew that everyone would commit evil. But he also knew some would notice the ultimate result of wrong doing and right doing and elect the path of righteousness.
----
quote: That sums up about 3/4 of Old Testament for me. It is exactly the "Submit to me unquestioning because I have power" aspect that I find so evil.
Read more Old Testament then. God doesn't NEED our praise but he certainly is not going to allow you to dictate how the universe runs.
If you choose evil then there is a place for those who seek it. If you are not evil, but don't really care to actively seek righteousness, well theres a place for that too. If you earnestly seek the truth and are willing to put God first because he knows what is best for you there is a place for those people too. Theres a place for everyone.
Interesting theory on the mythology by the way.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Isaac sacrafice, to me, says "When I tell you to do something, even if it is something really, really bad, the proper response is to do it without any questions." Abraham chose poorly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, What about those people who seek righteousness and truth but are horrified by the character and actions of God as it is described to them? Where's the place for them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:David: So rather then live with God who you deem too cruel you will instead "heroically" choose to shack up with the dude who is the reason any evil is committed in the first place?
You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
Otherwise, Satan is merely performing God's will. Just another stooge.
You don't go from a mere mortal to instantly becoming a diety. If I lived thousands of years and was very observant I would learn alot about human behavior that I could exploit. Satan has the power of experience and that gives him some advantages.
As for God creating Satan, well yes God created the being who would one day choose to take up that mantle. God certainly did not say, "I know Ill afflict people with Satan!" It was more, "Satan intends to do X, and I need to accomplish Y. X will make Y possible so Ill allow Satan to do as he intends as it will accomplish my ends for mankind. If God knows all it was the best option.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
That doesn't really logically follow, Xavier.
No one ever said God created Satan.
Even if God did create Satan, it doesn't follow that therefore God is responsible for all of Satan's wickedness.
Why should the power to do evil deify Satan? It seems like an illogical assumption.
To answer from a Mormon point of view-- Satan was created by God, just as all spirits were. Like all spirits, he had his agency. As time went on, for some reason Satan craved power. Long story short, that power was denied him, and he rebelled.
I do not believe that Satan is the fount of all evil; of course, I do not believe God is the sole source of order in the universe either.
Satan's fairly restricted in terms of power, in Mormon theology. Anyone with a body can best him. He is mostly limited to tempting and psychological warfare.
Satan as a stooge... well, CS Lewis called him a tool. He called Judas a tool, too.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB, What about those people who seek righteousness and truth but are horrified by the character and actions of God as it is described to them? Where's the place for them?
Well thats just plain impossible Mr S. Thats like asking for a place for people who are thirsty but don't want to fluids to enter their body.
If you are indeed seeking for truth and righteousness and God is infact the embodiment of these things, I think you will find him to be the best company you could ask for.
But like I said before, if God is not virtuous then he is an empowered being with a questionable alignment. If there is somebody with more power Ill throw in my lot with them. But if God is dishonest then he has fooled me as I have felt only His love in my life.
Why would I seriously suggest that if God is not really good that you are morally obligated to follow him?
I think it's more likely that God will VERY adequately explain all his actions of the Old Testament, New Testament, etc, and if you are not satisfied it is because you were not really seeking to be satisfied. Satan does not accept God's reasoning for not taking his plan and has convinced himself that God is contemptible.
The best literary Satanic character I've encountered is Calvin from the Alvin Maker series. But he is seemingly growing out of that role. But Taleswapper does a very good job of outlining the psychology of an evil person who has lied himself into that state.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the OT is important to understanding the human condition. It give the "history" of the culture from which Jesus came, which I believe is important. The stories do illuminate a people's relationship with God. I think it is a valuable record of a culture's move to monotheism and to a faith that was more than an attempt to influence the natural world.
Scott, Just? Certainly not to everyone. I don't think that God only cared for the Jews, yet the stories certainly read that way. And a lot of children get slaughtered - mauled by bears, for example - which can't really be called either just of merciful. A lot of baby Egyptians got killed just for being born Egyptian. The God portrayed in the OT shows a heck of a lot of favoritism. Which makes sense if you read the OT as the witness of one people and their relationship with God. It doesn't make so much sense if we take it as literal truth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
If by responsible you mean responsible for helping manages us in our ultimate decision between the two then yes. If you mean God created all evil then no, Mormons believe God has a father who has a father who has a father, and that Satan is a role that not just Lucifer has taken up, and that it also goes back ad infinitum. There really is not much discussion on the nature of Satan's role as it does nothing to help us achieve salvation, so I expect to get more information on the matter when I'm dead.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If you are indeed seeking for truth and righteousness and God is infact the embodiment of these things, I think you will find him to be the best company you could ask for.
No! Wrong! Your god kills children and brags about it! An 'explanation' along the lines of 'You will understand when you are dead' is not good enough. It assumes that which is to be proved, namely that the god in question is good. You are saying that any action god takes is good, because it is god doing it; and you know that the god is good because... it tells you it is good. You can't do that! You have to look at the actions and not the words; and the actions are evil! The only way to get good out of genocide is to assume that it prevents something even worse; but to do that, you have to know already that the intention is good, and that is precisely the point in dispute. Why is this so hard to understand? You do not know that your god is good; you only know what it tells you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, Just? Certainly not to everyone. I don't think that God only cared for the Jews, yet the stories certainly read that way. And a lot of children get slaughtered - mauled by bears, for example - which can't really be called either just of merciful. A lot of baby Egyptians got killed just for being born Egyptian. The God portrayed in the OT shows a heck of a lot of favoritism. Which makes sense if you read the OT as the witness of one people and their relationship with God. It doesn't make so much sense if we take it as literal truth.
Kmboots--
Precisely where do you stop, when you begin to make justifications for saying, 'This portion of scripture is false because it doesn't live up to my standards and philosophies?'
It seems to me that this way of approaching theology is flawed-- it puts one's own attitudes above the attitudes of God. (Assuming one accepts the given scriptures as inspired to some degree by the divine)
How does one decide what is holy, and what is one culture's take on unexplainably lucky events that occurred to them?
And for the record-- God screwed everyone in the Old Testament pretty equally. Israelites, too. The book of Judges has lots of stories about this aspect of being a chosen people...
(Okay, what's REALLY interesting to me is that the two Big Slaughters-by-the-Hand-of-God-Himself stories-- the Flood, and the Plague of the Firstborn-- both figure prominently in books I'm writing. And here we are discussing them.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: You know can you stop being disingenuous about my God's actions. Bragging? You've got to be kidding me.
God has explained the situation that I think he was justified in his action. I have never once said, "An action is good because God did it." This entire TIME I've done nothing but rationally explain reasoning for God's actions. You may not agree with my conclusions but don't pretend that I have simply accepted God's actions as good because he told me so.
I do not KNOW my God is good? Um excuse me until God does something that cannot be demonstratively right thats when I will say he isn't good. Just because you fail to come up with such a scenario does not mean its mine or God's fault. YOU do not know God is good, I on the other hand have ample evidence that he is good. If God explained EVERY single reason for flooding all of humanity it would take a book so long nobody could finish it in their life time as he would have to explain every single effect throughout all of history and how it relates to every single human being that has ever lived.
You are right I can only have two things that I base my assertion that God is good.
A: Acts God claims to have commited. Assuming He actually did it, then the rightness of it can be analyzed.
B: His word.
Well you are right, I could be deceived by my God, but I could also be dealing with an honest God. Since I have to choose one and both are equally likely, Ill choose the one that gives me a happy outlook on life, rather then the one that makes me live each day in fear.
We shall see who was right. Up until now, believing and following God has led me to circumstances that I think are wonderful.
[ December 15, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, hermeneutics, mostly. It is possible to study and learn about the context of the texts - who they were written for and by, what were the literary conventions when they were written, what anthropologically and archeaological do we know about who wrote them, when and why, etc.
We do this for all sorts of ancient texts in order to interpret them. It makes sense to me to apply those methods to biblical texts as well. There is a ton of meaning that we miss if we don't apply that kind of understanding. We could read, "Jesus sat" and skip right over it without realizing that, in the literary convention of the time, body posture signified something in particular. Or read, "on the first day of the week" and not think anything beyond "Sunday" instead of realizing that the author included that as an allusion to the first day of Creation.
I do think the Scriptures are inspired - but that is different from "dictated in a way to be understood without context".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Given these statements: A) God is omnipotent. B) Satan is not omnipotent. C) Satan is responsible for all Evil. D) God created Satan.
It is my contention that: "if A & B, then P". P) God can eliminate Satan at any time he chooses.
Further, I think this follows: "if P, then Q" Q) God can eliminate evil at any time he chooses.
It is my stance, that: "if Q and D and !Q then X" X) God is responsible for all evil.
In english: "If God created Satan, and Satan is responsible for all evil, and God can eliminate Satan at any time, but does not do so, then God is himself responsible for all evil."
You may not agree with this logic, and there are a number of leaps. I'd imagine most of those who would disagree would disagree with the last step in the chain.
However, I'd assume that this is largely meaningless to you, since the Mormon religion does not believe in A or C. My post was addressing someone whom, as far as I know, believes A-D
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't understand how you use hermenuetics-- a branch of literary scholarship-- to determine the divinity of a work.
How do you say that the Flood story is NOT divine, and is the product of propaganda of the age, and that the Christ story IS divine and from God?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:You can say that Satan is responsible for evil, but since God created Satan, the distinction is worthless. In order to give Satan the sort of power you are attempting to, you need to push Satan into the "deity" category, and there goes your precious Monotheism you folks so tightly cling to.
That doesn't really logically follow, Xavier.
No one ever said God created Satan.
Even if God did create Satan, it doesn't follow that therefore God is responsible for all of Satan's wickedness.
Why should the power to do evil deify Satan? It seems like an illogical assumption.
To answer from a Mormon point of view-- Satan was created by God, just as all spirits were. Like all spirits, he had his agency. As time went on, for some reason Satan craved power. Long story short, that power was denied him, and he rebelled.
I do not believe that Satan is the fount of all evil; of course, I do not believe God is the sole source of order in the universe either.
Satan's fairly restricted in terms of power, in Mormon theology. Anyone with a body can best him. He is mostly limited to tempting and psychological warfare.
Satan as a stooge... well, CS Lewis called him a tool. He called Judas a tool, too.
Scott, I hate to say it, but this is some of the stuff which makes some Christians uncomfortable with calling LDS a Christian religion.
I agree that Xavier's statement isn't necessarily a given (though it could result in that conclusion), but as to some of the rest:
I think everyone (at least everyone who believes that Satan exists) believes that God created him. Though I guess this goes along with your statement about God not being the source of all Order...
If it did not come from God, then where did it come from? (otherwise we seem to have very different definitions of God)
KoM, I agree that you can't use the Noah story as an example of why to believe that God is good (and potentially much of the old testament) but as a Christian it's at least somewhat reasonable to accept the new testament as the "evidence" that God is good and in fact is capable of providing suitable explanations for previous actions (the ones which don't turn out to be pure myth)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What do you mean by 'Evil,' Xavier? The definition of that word seems very important to this discussion.
Also, where does man's agency enter into your logic?
Is Satan, in your logic, responsible for the evil actions of men?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
TheGrimace:
Yeah, I know. I'm not terribly interested in defending Mormonism as going with the flow of traditional Christianity.
God calls us Christians ( ); that's enough for me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Grimace: Well you are uncomfortable with labeling Mormons as Christians, perhaps rightly so.
But as far as mankind is concerned, we believe the only way to receive salvation from our sins is through the savior Jesus Christ sent by God the Father, and his atonement. Does being a Christians mean we have to agree on the origins of God and Satan?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not sure what you are asking. "Inspired" doesn't mean, for me, "word for word as God dictated it".
I treat the New Testament the same way. Paul's letters - written by Paul - or someone on his behalf as he was inspired to write them. Not written by God and transcribed by Paul.
edit to add: Not that I do this myself - I mostly rely on those who know what they are talking about.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Scott and BB, Thanks for not reading deeper into my statement than I indended it to go (as merely a statement of why some are leery of accepting a certain categorization).
BB, it all depends on what the term "Christians" means to any given person (obviously quite variable). I'm not saying that this is even remotely equivalent to our differences but as an extreme comparison: Consider a guy who believes that Jesus is in fact the son of God (but God is actually just the name of some random Martian) and following his teachings will lead him to heaven (but Heaven is another name for Atlantis). I would not be comfortable with a close comparison of his theology to mine because I think they would vary quite a bit.
Personally I'm fine accepting a certain band of thoughts on the nature and power of Satan, and a much narrower band on the nature of God, but there are certain things that are requisites (i.e. omnipotence and omniscience) but anyway, that's not really important to this discussion.
Xavier, your more recent logical proof to say that God is the source of all evil I can accept more than the previous one, but do realize that there have been at least hundreds of years of philosophical debate on the nature of that issue. The topic was one of the primary debates of the Middle Ages (at least). And there's ways to explain that even given your logic that it's an acceptable conclusion that doesn't necessarily conflict with a belief in a god that is "All Good"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I do not KNOW my God is good? Um excuse me until God does something that cannot be demonstratively right thats when I will say he isn't good.
Such as, for example, genocide? You would not accept the excuse of 'they deserved it' from anyone else; the only reason you accept it from your god is that you have already decided on the goodness of its actions.
quote:Since I have to choose one and both are equally likely,
They are not equally likely! Suppose you came at the thing fresh, with no idea of what justifications there might be for the genocide. You would condemn it, yes? Then, if you later heard the excuse of "it was necessary", would you not take that for a lie? You only say "They are equally likely" because you have already decided which is true, and need an excuse. Actions have primacy over words; you need to look at the actoins first, and only then decide whether the offered reasons are valid. Bearing in mind, of course, that you have only words to show omniscience and benevolence.
quote:We shall see who was right. Up until now, believing and following God has led me to circumstances that I think are wonderful.
Bully for you. I'm sure a lot of Germans enjoyed being top dog, too.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:What do you mean by 'Evil,' Xavier? The definition of that word seems very important to this discussion.
Also, where does man's agency enter into your logic?
Is Satan, in your logic, responsible for the evil actions of men?
The definition or nature of "Evil" is meaningless in my logic. Replace "Evil" with "cupcakes" and my beliefs on the subject still hold. (You may remember, I actually don't even believe in "evil", as most people would define it.)
The point of my post was to demonstrate that saying that Satan was responsible for X was meaningless, because if you believe that God created Satan, and could trivially remove Satan, that the responsibilty rests on God's shoulders as well.
Edit: Say I create a machine, and carry an "off" switch for that machine with me at all times, and then that machine starts killing people (even if that wasn't my original intent in creating the machine). If I don't turn it off, I'm ultimately responsible.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Oh, by the way, "I have to choose one" is a false dichotomy anyway. You could also withhold judgement while awaiting more evidence.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM:
quote:Such as, for example, genocide? You would not accept the excuse of 'they deserved it' from anyone else; the only reason you accept it from your god is that you have already decided on the goodness of its actions.
Don't tell me how I think, its stupidly presumptuous.
Just because we have no other instance of a justified genocide does not mean a justifiable genocide is impossible. We only have one unrepeatable experiment accomplishing cold fusion, does that mean we assume its impossible? If you are seriously suggesting that it is IMPOSSIBLE that genocide could be necessary, well Ill have to disagree with you. Quit pretending that means that I could easily be swayed into jumping on the genocide band wagon, nothing could be further from the truth.
quote: They are not equally likely! Suppose you came at the thing fresh, with no idea of what justifications there might be for the genocide. You would condemn it, yes? Then, if you later heard the excuse of "it was necessary", would you not take that for a lie? You only say "They are equally likely" because you have already decided which is true, and need an excuse. Actions have primacy over words; you need to look at the actoins first, and only then decide whether the offered reasons are valid. Bearing in mind, of course, that you have only words to show omniscience and benevolence.
If I came at the thing truly fresh I would not have the assumption that genocide is empirically wrong. But I do approach genocide in that it is always wrong if a human commits it of his own reasoning. Humans cannot possibly comprehend all the factors that must be understood before undertaking such an awesome (awesome as in epic not TOTALLY AWESOME awesome).
In this instance of justified genocide, you are dealing with God who not only created mankind he is their creator and master He does with us as He wills and we cannot stop him, fortunately for us he is accomplishing the greatest good so we can sleep easy. Did he imbue Noah with power to wipe out anybody he came across? No he had Noah build an ark and God did the deed himself. And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
But go ahead KOM use your limited powers of understanding to judge all of God's actions. You've decided to start arguing with me that I don't KNOW what I think I know instead of arguing with the rationale I've presented.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Oh, by the way, "I have to choose one" is a false dichotomy anyway. You could also withhold judgement while awaiting more evidence.
Or I could say thus far I am convinced, if something turns out to show me otherwise Ill take it into due consideration.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmbboots, I'd debate with you but I think we agree on most things =p (or at least have already covered one main point of disagreement a while back)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Grimace. I'm just teasing KoM. I think I annoy him, 'cuz I'm vague and slippery.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We only have one unrepeatable experiment accomplishing cold fusion, does that mean we assume its impossible?
This is a REALLY bad example -- for scientific reasons more than theological ones.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
*dryly* Because BB yells back, and you're all calm and rational and stuff. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We only have one unrepeatable experiment accomplishing cold fusion, does that mean we assume its impossible?
quote:This is a REALLY bad example -- for scientific reasons more than theological ones.
Care to elucidate? Honestly I am curious, I was under the impression that some scientists in Utah claimed to have worked out cold fusion but they and all others who duplicate their work cannot replicate the results.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
*dryly* Because BB yells back, and you're all calm and rational and stuff.
DO NOT!!!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It's easier to be calm when you don't have to defend the details.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
True enough.
It wasn't a criticism of BB's posting style (or yours); it was an observation on KoM's.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yup. I'm off for the weekend. I need to get access at home! Maybe after the holidays.
Have a good weekend/Sabbath all of you - whatever day it is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:In this instance of justified genocide, you are dealing with God who not only created mankind he is their creator and master He does with us as He wills and we cannot stop him, fortunately for us he is accomplishing the greatest good so we can sleep easy.
Sigh... there you go again, assuming what you set out to prove. Until you stop using your position as a premise to prove yourself correct, there is not much point to the discussion. How about replying in the Al-Qaida thread, instead?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Just because we have no other instance of a justified genocide does not mean a justifiable genocide is impossible.
Why do you assume that God's genocides are justifiable? You start from the presumption that they must be; why?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots--
How do you assign truth to one teaching of Paul's, while saying that teaching X is just personal opinion?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I didn't start off with that premise and then set out to prove it. I read the story, listened to the reasoning, decided it was justified, and since then have experienced God in such a manner that I am inclined to believe the scriptures.
Tom: I am not assuming they are justified, though it seems pretty futile that if we are arguing that God was not justified why does he not just snuff us out for questioning him? God flooding the earth is not justified in of itself, remember Mormons believe God can do all that CAN be done, not everything he pleases. If his genocide was not justified he would cease to be God, and in this instance there is an explanation that justifies the act.
I am quite capable of questioning what God does, I just don't jump to the conclusion that God is evil if I have difficulty comprehending an act. Nor do I focus on the thought, "God is good God is good" until my mind calms down and I forget what was bothering you.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I think the complete prevention of any evil would also necessitate the complete prevention of anything good too.
Well, that's fine. But that means that Satan is not responsible for all evil; it means that God is responsible for all evil, on behalf of a greater good.
Right. After all, the Bible says that God created evil.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: Lisa:
quote:When you know everything God knows, then you can ask a question like that.
Not a good parenting technique, btw. If I tried that with my kids ["When you know all I know, then you can ask me questions! Till then, pipe down."] I can imagine I'd be doing them a pretty big disservice. Strange that Man seems more moral than his God.
That's an issue of morality? Weird.
In any case, you're a lot more similar to your children, in both knowledge and the capacity for knowledge, than you are to God.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
No, you are actually bequeathing to God hypothetical breadth of and capacity for knowledge the existence and details of which you have no real proof, beyond a single tome and an exegetical tradition. I will assert with Faustian arrogance that I can understand anything your [theoretical] god deigns to share with me.
[ December 17, 2006, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
"This is going to hurt Me more than it's going to hurt you."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
Um, that doesn't really help for me. In fact, it makes it significantly worse.
"It wasn't me. They made me do it. They were just so wicked. I had to do it."
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
At least he gave us another chance look what he did to the Martians...
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
This just gets worse and worse.
Also: "Gods don't cry."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on
I don't see either of those. It's pure invention.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
end of parshat breishit "וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו"
edit: genesis 6:6
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And if we are to take God's word for it, he wept at the prospect of flooding the earth.
God didn't weep about what He was going to do. He wept about the wickedness He saw among His children.
I don't know how the translation goes - but in the Hebrew I fail to find the passage in which God wept. It says he was saddened, but I don't see any weeping going on
I don't see either of those. It's pure invention.
Lisa....
I noted the origin of the scriptures I linked where it states that God wept, and Enoch asked God "How canst thou weep."
You may see it as "invention." We see your version as "erroneous."
If humans are God's children. Its doubtful he lacks the capacity to feel the entire spectrum of emotions that we do. I wouldn't claim to be able to feel sorrow and then say God is incapable of it.
quote: Um, that doesn't really help for me. In fact, it makes it significantly worse.
"It wasn't me. They made me do it. They were just so wicked. I had to do it."
Oh come on. Is it really so hard to imagine God weeping that his creation had become so degenerate that he had to punish them so severely? But I suppose that NOBODY can know when a drastic course of action must take place. And nobody can weep at having to do something they know must be done.
It gives me a whole new outlook on the movie Old Yeller.
SPOILER****
Travis didn't KNOW he had to shoot the rabid Old Yeller. In fact it was impossible for him to really be sad while doing it. There must be another explanation.
/Spoiler
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: No, you are actually bequeathing to God hypothetical breadth of and capacity for knowledge the existence and details of which you have no real proof, beyond a single tome and an exegetical tradition. I will assert with Faustian arrogance that I can understand anything your [theoretical] god deigns to share with me.
Whatever makes you feel good.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Lisa....
I noted the origin of the scriptures I linked where it states that God wept, and Enoch asked God "How canst thou weep."
Ah, sorry. It's in one of your books. I thought the claim was that it was in Genesis, which it isn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: end of parshat breishit "וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו"
edit: genesis 6:6
It doesn't say He was sad to wipe us out; it says He was said that He created us in the first place.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
According to me, Earth is 23 years old. 23 full cycles around the sun that is; give or take.
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If humans are God's children. Its doubtful he lacks the capacity to feel the entire spectrum of emotions that we do. I wouldn't claim to be able to feel sorrow and then say God is incapable of it.
It was doubtful to Maimonides (In The Guide to the Perplexed ), who said that emotions cannot be ascribed to God. And that's enough for me to consider that view as more than just "doubtful."
Posted by crescentsss (Member # 9494) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by crescentsss: end of parshat breishit "וינחם ה' כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל לבו"
edit: genesis 6:6
It doesn't say He was sad to wipe us out; it says He was said that He created us in the first place.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Oh come on. Is it really so hard to imagine God weeping that his creation had become so degenerate that he had to punish them so severely?
Imagine I am a parent. Of course I weep that my children are doing drugs. I don't knock them on the head and put them in the garage with the car running, though.
It's not the crying that bothers me. It's combination- the act.
I can imagine that an individual person can be so evil that a parent might kill them in desperation. However, I do not buy an entire race and indeed set of creatures- babies, children, adults, grandparents, all could ever deserve such a thing.
Of course, it doesn't help that I don't believe that God ever inflicted such a genocide only that survivors interpreted a natural disaster that way, not such a stretch, even in this day and age. But hypothetically speaking, I do not recognise a person or a God that would do such a thing. It's just the way I am.
EDIT:
quote:it says He was sad that He created us in the first place.
Sentient species are complicated little playthings.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I can imagine that an individual person can be so evil that a parent might kill them in desperation. However, I do not buy an entire race and indeed set of creatures- babies, children, adults, grandparents, all could ever deserve such a thing.
Deserve? Like, as in fairness?
I'm not going to try to excuse God for the innocents presumably killed in the flood.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Lisa, I can assure you that it does not, in fact, make me feel good. I would like nothing more than to discover that there is a reason for it all, that there is, after all, a kind and generous being who will make it all okay in the end. Beyond the total lack of evidence of her/his/its existence, I also have struggled to find a single religion the beliefs of which actually reflect a benign divine nature.
It makes me quite sad, actually.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I also have struggled to find a single religion the beliefs of which actually reflect a benign divine nature.
What does 'benign' mean to you?
If, for example, having the gene for blonde hair will eventually trigger psychosis in all who possess that gene, resulting in mass global terror and zombification of north and south America, what would a benign God do to prevent that, AND maintain the capacity for human free will?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not allow the gene to have existed in the first place?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:what would a benign God do to prevent that, AND maintain the capacity for human free will?
Eliminate the gene, and/or blondeness? Provide a common fruit that, when eaten by people with blonde hair, cures psychosis? And so on...
Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Or perhaps just "fix" the gene. Humans never need know it was broken.
If the gene universally causes psychosis, there's no free will anyway!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God.
Good point.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Seriously, whenever I hear "free will" advanced as a solution for the problem of evil, I'm always struck by how little imagination people ascribe to God.
Good point.
How so? It seems like a point with no substance to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
You think superior force would change it? Hmmm...might. I hope not. Anyway, chalk one up for faith that is not dependent on evidence - though I miss out on the fun of debating KoM.
Scott, I'm not quite sure what you are asking. I think that Paul's writings are inspired. I think they are likely written - or at least dictated - by Paul. I think that they are written to address specific concerns of specific audiences and that they need to by understood in that context, but that they contain a great deal that is applicable, useful, and "truthful" to us. I do not think that Paul was always right. I do think that he had a unique and important relationship with God and that what he wrote is important to us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In terms of my scenario, Tom and Fugu are right-- there are a hundred thousand things an omnipotent God could do to resolve the situation.
It's a poor scenario for the point I was trying to make. And anyway, it's not a point that I can make until one accepts a very Mormon and very Scott R'ish point of view-- that God isn't omnipotent, and cannot be nice all the time and still be God.
I should've stuck with my initial question: What does benign mean?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I think that they are written to address specific concerns of specific audiences and that they need to by understood in that context
quote:I do not think that Paul was always right.
How do you determine which teaching is specific to the audience Paul was writing to and which is general, 'Everyone-do-this' doctrine.
How do you determine when Paul is right?
For Mormons, we refer to the teachings of current prophets to interpret the directions of ancient scripture. The words of our current prophets are validated by the charismatic power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, in our belief, we are able to say for example, that Paul was being somewhat misogynistic when he said women shouldn't teach in church, and we say that we say that with God's approbation.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
From the attempts by some to criticize God despite His restraint, it is easy to see why He did not obliterate all who conceived evil right away. He allows this world to lurch on in its evil-caused distresses, so the true nature of evil can be fully witnessed by all. That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question. So Isaiah was inspired to write God's purpose: "I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." (Isaiah 45:23) That must include Satan and all the other fallen angels with him, along with all the humans who have joined with them in embracing evil. They will bow and confess the justice of God, but it will not be a genuine repentance, only a confession of their own guilt moved by regret at the consequences they themselves must justly suffer.
The reasons why God wiped out the antedeluvians were stated thusly: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Gen. 6:5) Also: "And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." (Gen. 6:13)
For this to be true, that the thought of every heart was only evil continually, and especially taking note of the fact that the earth was filled with violence, it is reasonable to conclude that the incorrigible wicked had killed all the righteous, all but Noah and his family. Had it not been for the Flood taking away the wicked, they would have gotten around to killing Noah and his family, too, despite their instinctive reverence for a man six hundred years old.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Some of it is scholarly and historical - if you know that the Church at Ephesus was having a certain issue, you can better understand what Paul was saying, why he might have emphasized certain points rather than others etc.
One example is the infamous "justification" of slavery. This is much clearer when we understand it in context. Paul was a product of his time and was dealing with the realities of his own culture - one that included slaves (as well as women as property). When Paul advises slaves to submit to their masters, that didn't mean that slavery was right. We know better now.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:He allows this world to lurch on in its evil-caused distresses, so the true nature of evil can be fully witnessed by all. That when, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
To borrow from Teshi:
"See? SEE!!! I was totally right! Told you so, I told you so! Uh-huh. Check me out now, freaks. I told you that the G-O-D was in the hizzouse. BOO-YAH! On your k-nees, mo'fos! Tha's right."
I don't think that the reason God allows evil to continue is to prove that Good > Evil. He could have done that with a DVD player and a 'Lord of the Rings' dvd.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
Sure. That's only logical since He'll have eliminated all the questioners.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: It was doubtful to Maimonides (In The Guide to the Perplexed ), who said that emotions cannot be ascribed to God. And that's enough for me to consider that view as more than just "doubtful."
Well I am glad that a great thinker you respect thought so, but bear in mind.
From wikipedia, The Scholastics agreed with him that no predicate is adequate to express the nature of God; but they did not go so far as to say that no term can be applied to God in the affirmative sense.
Now when I read in the Old Testament God saying, "In the hotness of my anger..."
"For I am a jealous God."
"Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?"
Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
Even in much of Christian thought, the idea is that, "God is without passions." I respect scriptural scholars, I really do, but it just seems in my experience it just does not say that in the text, or what I mean is,
"I've yet to encounter a scripture where God is describes or describes himself as without emotion, and yet have read many places where he declares his feelings/emotions."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think the questioners are included among those who "will know He is fair and just without question." I think that's kind of Ron's point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
Sure. That's only logical since He'll have eliminated all the questioners.
Karl are you seriously suggesting that you think the God who flooded the earth would have done so if everybody was kind and virtuous but too darn curious and questioning?
You know theres a great set of scriptures where Abraham was asking God about his plan to destroy Sodom and Gumorah and keeps asking God if there were X righteous people would he spare the cities. It went sorta like this
"What if there were X?"
"Then I would spare it"
"What if there were Y?"
"Then I would spare it"
"What if there were Z?"
"Then I would spare it"
Well X > Y > Z and Z = 10
Sadly there were not even 10 people who were righteous in the cities, Noah and his family were probably close to that number as well. My points isn't that God perhaps wipes out areas where at least 10 good people can be found.
But God certainly seems to be fine with us questioning things in an effort to understand. Moses whining got a rebuke, Abraham querying got answers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron,
I was giving this sosme thought this weekend. There is quite a bit of scripture that I do need to take more literally than I do. Not the Creation stuff or the Noah stuff - and definately not the Revelation stuff. I am quite comfortable with my take on those.
But I have way too many coats, for example. I could stand to give some of them to people who have none. I fail, often, to give to those who ask. I have not come anywhere close to selling my possesions and giving it to the poor. I judge all the time.
What do you thinnk of this kind of literalism?
I need to take all of this more seriously. More literally.
Most particularly - if nothing else - I need to take this literally and engrave it on my heart:
"I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
[ December 18, 2006, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
But if that is the case why does he say "I am angry" or anything like that. Isn't it just as easy to say, "I am not going to put up with this, it is evil, and I do not tolerate evil."
No emotion in there, and its perfectly clear.
God could even say, "I as the champion of good must do all I can to prevent evil from occurring." Again a complete lack of emotion.
Buddhism has done a great job of explaining why people must act in this or that manner without their emotions being a justification.
It just doesn't seem to me, and of course, what do I know? That God has not intentionally tried to express this concept of being without emotions in the scriptures.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Now perhaps God has completely different spectrum of something we might crudely call emotions. Or perhaps he has emotions just as we do, and he uses the same adjectives we do to describe them because we in that regard are just like him. Which sounds simpler?
You left out an even simpler option: God has no emotions, but He uses anthropomorphic language to express things in a manner that human beings can understand.
There are two views of anthropomorphims like this in Judaism. One is what Rivka is saying. The Torah refers to God's "outstretched arm", even though God obviously doesn't have an arm, because it's a metaphor.
The other one is that God has an attribute called yad (or "arm"), and our arms are an approximation of the real thing. It's almost a Platonic way of looking at things, with God as the archetype of everything.
There's no real practical difference between the two; it's pretty much a philosophical one only.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
BB, "anger" is easily comprehended shorthand. And remember, just as you have scriptures that I do not accept, we have the Oral Torah. Maimonides was not coming to his conclusion in a vacuum.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's no real practical difference between the two; it's pretty much a philosophical one only.
IIRC, it's the Maharal who says the two are actually the same, but from different perspectives.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Deserve? Like, as in fairness?
[Smile]
I'm not going to try to excuse God for the innocents presumably killed in the flood.
Ah, good answer
Obviously, this is where our paths diverge in a yellow wood.
quote:"See? SEE!!! I was totally right! Told you so, I told you so! Uh-huh. Check me out now, freaks. I told you that the G-O-D was in the hizzouse. BOO-YAH! On your k-nees, mo'fos! Tha's right."
Hahaha! Your God is more humourous than mine. Also more rapperish. Makes mine look all boring and blank.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: That way, when He does finally act to remove all sin and sinners from the universe, all will know He is fair and just without question.
Sure. That's only logical since He'll have eliminated all the questioners.
Karl, according to John 5:29, there will be two general resurrections: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Did you catch that the wicked will also be resurrected? Revelation 20 says the two resurrections are separated by a thousand years. The resurrection of life comes at the Second Advent of Christ, while the resurrection of the wicked comes a thousand years later, when there is a final demonstration and judgment. The wicked will be given a little time to demonstrate that their spirit of rebellion and murderous hatred has not changed, as they attempt to lay seige to the New Jerusalem and take it by force.
They will be interrupted by a final judgment manifested before their eyes, showing them where in their lives they made their fateful choices to depart from God and spurned His entreaties to repent again and again until they sealed their fates. Then all the wicked, including Satan and his fellow devils will be destroyed in the lake of fire, as fire comes down from God out of heaven and the earth's surface becomes molten for a time, as the earth is being re-created into a new Paradise. The righteous will be privileged to witness a new Creation Week.
So everyone, including God's accusers, are confronted with all the evidence and are present when sentence is pronounced.
[ December 18, 2006, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: BB, "anger" is easily comprehended shorthand. And remember, just as you have scriptures that I do not accept, we have the Oral Torah. Maimonides was not coming to his conclusion in a vacuum.
oh indeed, thank you for pointing that out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:this is where our paths diverge in a yellow wood.
I love that poem. It unfortunately gets misintrepreted in every high school in America as being an anthem for non-conformity, rather than a pensive reflection on how choosing between two almost identical paths can make a large difference in one's life.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
SIXTEEN!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: You fool!
This is in response to ScottR's "Road Not Taken" comment.
I know. I didn't study it in school, but had heard as much.
I discovered "the truth" while singing an arranged musical in choir. I was interested to discover that the lyrics didn't specifically advocate that the outcome was necessarily better than the other.
"I shall be telling this with a sigh Somewhere ages and ages hence. Two roads diverged in a wood and I I took the one less travelled by, And that has made all the difference."
I think there is an implication of it being a slightly better decision, maybe. But because it's spoken from shortly after having taken the path, there's no way of knowing.
Also, it says specifically in the poem that there really wasn't that much difference between the paths.
Additionally, the speaker wants to take both, but obviously can only take one. He says that he would like to come back, but "knowing how way leads on to way, It was likely that I would never come back."
I merely meant that we were taking different paths on this topic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
My way's better. See? Less people on it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think in this thread, everyone's got their own personal path.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
EDITED:
See, not all of us consider "walk your own path" to be particularly beneficial from an eternal standpoint.
[ December 18, 2006, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
EDIT: Way to edit and make me look like an idiot .
It makes it all okay if you put smiley faces!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What? What are you talking about?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You framed your previous reply with happy faces. I thought they were incongruous, so I made a joke.
EDIT: Oh, that was a joke too!
quote:See, not all of us consider "walk your own path" to be particularly beneficial from an eternal standpoint.
Nevertheless, everyone walks their own path. You'd be hard pressed to find people who walk exactly the same path. We are all fundamentally egotistical, we'd all like to believe that we are right.
(Note the happy faces)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If it's any consolation, I edited before you posted... I'm mostly innocent.
For those who didn't see it, I posted something like, "Yes, but you're all going to hell. Congratulations-- at least you're thinking for yourself."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
He framed it with happy faces, it was classic.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The question isn't what WE believe, but what GOD believes, and if He'll tell us.
I'm one of those snobby exclusivists-- I think there is one right way only, and it's a fairly narrow street.
:shrug:
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For those to whom it is applicable, what do we think about NT literalism? For me, this is the stuff that matters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I need a better definition of what you're thinking about when you say NT literalism...
I do think we, as Christians, need to live more simply, giving more to the poor, and taking a good look at where we can cut finances to enable us to do so-- and then doing it.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I'm one of those snobby exclusivists-- I think there is one right way only, and it's a fairly narrow street.
I'm one of those hippy inclusivists. If that's a word.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yesterday's gospel lesson was John the Baptist:
And the crowds asked him, "What then should we do?" In reply he said to them, "Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise."
How literally do we take this? How many of us have more than one coat? If we are to take this literally, that means we should be getting rid of coats and food. On the other hand, does a literal translation mean only coats? Do we go back to the original greek (I think) and figure out what "coat" actually meant? Should we feel okay about, say, hoarding jackets or sweaters? I can just imagine the doctrinal split over whether jackets count as coats...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think that John the Baptist was probably just giving an example of what you should do using coats and food as important things that the poor may not be able to get enough of themselves.
Basically, donate what you don't need to charity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well...that's what I think, too. Get serious about what your really need and what you should really be giving.
But that isn't a literal translation. It is a reasonable interpretation. I think that you and I (hippy inclusivists, that we are) are pretty much on the same page. I am curious about how literalists understand these passages.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh I see .
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I would imagine that the NT would be particularly problematic since J.C. himself so often spoke in parables that he then would explain. Where would you draw the line as to what was parable and what wasn't and/or if we were to take the parables literally as well as symbolically... good question kmbboots
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...that's what I think, too. Get serious about what your really need and what you should really be giving.
But that isn't a literal translation. It is a reasonable interpretation. I think that you and I (hippy inclusivists, that we are) are pretty much on the same page. I am curious about how literalists understand these passages.
About the same as when Jesus answered Peter's "7 times Lord?" in regards to forgiveness with "Seventy Times Seven." I imagine Peter thought 7 was a good number and being from a Law background an exact number would be important. Jesus did indeed say, "70 X 70" and it would NOT suprise me if I encountered Christians who said, "We can only forgive somebody 4900 times!" but I think they would have ironically missed the entire point of the statement.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, how come you like debating with BlackBlade so much and you hardly debate me at all!
(pouts)
Because he claims to have been convinced by evidence; that makes him a rational person, capable of having his mind changed by being shown better evidence. You, however, "choose to believe". This is an irrational act changeable only by superior force. Since I cannot apply superior force through the Internet (nor in person, US law being unfortunately irrational on the subject of what is justifiable grounds for violence), there is no use in debating with you.
You think superior force would change it? Hmmm...might. I hope not. Anyway, chalk one up for faith that is not dependent on evidence - though I miss out on the fun of debating KoM.
I think superior force can make you sit still for a combination of brainwashing and torture that will make you believe anything, 1984-style, yes. I also think it would be a lot more cost-effective to just shoot you, and then you won't believe anything at all, so your belief will have been changed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
heh. I'm not sure why, KoM, but that made me giggle.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
A literal translation of Revelations would equate to a very bad LSD trip.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: About the same as when Jesus answered Peter's "7 times Lord?" in regards to forgiveness with "Seventy Times Seven." I imagine Peter thought 7 was a good number and being from a Law background an exact number would be important. Jesus did indeed say, "70 X 70" and it would NOT suprise me if I encountered Christians who said, "We can only forgive somebody 4900 times!" but I think they would have ironically missed the entire point of the statement.
Heh. Two script titles I encountered while working with church drama: "Seventy Times Sixty-nine is Close Enough" and "Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-Nine and then POW!!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In my scripture study this morning, I came across an interesting passage in 2 Nephi 28. (This is in the Book of Mormon) It made me think of this discussion, and how seriously we are to take charitable giving and simplistic living.
quote:13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.
It's an interesting concept, and one that I find to be very true-- that the poor are made poorer by the excesses of the rich. In this case, Nephi is talking about the corrupted church of Christ-- those who should know better, who have been taught and who should understand Christ's gospel, but who neglect the practical doctrine in favor of material wealth.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:those who should know better, who have been taught and who should understand Christ's gospel, but who neglect the practical doctrine in favor of material wealth.
I'd add or temporal power so I can ask "Is there another kind?"
We've been waiting for a couple of thousand years (or at least since Constantine) for mainstream Christianity to actually do some of the hard things that Jesus said. Some of us are getting tired of holding our breath.
On the other hand, I think the God of the Old Testament is more or less happy with the way things have gone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:We've been waiting for a couple of thousand years (or at least since Constantine) for mainstream Christianity to actually do some of the hard things that Jesus said.
It has done many of the hard things Christ said.
The problem is it hasn't done them enough and it's done other things as well.
But it's definitely done them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think the God of the Old Testament is more or less happy with the way things have gone.
Can you explain why you think this?
The "God of the Old Testament" that I'm familiar with was a big fan of giving to the poor, supporting widows and orphans, helping the destitute... that's where Jesus learned his schtick from, anyway.
Or at least that's what Jesus claimed.
Whenever this topic is brought up, I'm reminded of the end of the movie, "Chocolat." Alfred Molina has taken his dive through the chocolatier's window, and succumbed to the power of Cocoa; everyone's gathered together to hear the young, newly emancipated priest's sermon on Easter morning. And the young priest says something along the lines of, "I don't want to talk about Jesus' ressurrection; I want to talk about Jesus' message of tolerance and blah blah blah."
It's a cheat of a device. Philosophically, Jesus brought very little new to the table. The principles of giving and mercy and love are already covered in the Old Testament-- it's one of the reasons Jews have a wonderful culture of helping the poor.
The reason for the gospel, and for Jesus' presence on the earth, was to redeem man from his fallen, sinful state, and to break death so that we could return to God. The message on charity is as old as human history-- the Good News Jesus effected is only 2000 years old.
So when I hear critiscisms about how Christianity hasn't lived up to its message, I smile. Because it's not CHRISTIANITY's message, even though Christianity contains the message. Even though it's an important part of really being Christian.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:... that's where Jesus learned his schtick from, anyway.
Hmmm, and here I was always taught that Jesus was the "God of the Old Testament".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Just goes to show you, KarlEd. Never assume.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Er...you're right.
I should have been more careful with my wording.
What I'm shooting for is the idea that there is no significant difference between the principles of charity and mercy Jehovah taught through/to the Israelites, and the principles espoused by Christ during his mortal ministry. This to offset the idea that the "God of the Old Testament" was unconditionally bloody-handed in comparison.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, I think the big difference is that the OT is the record of one people's relationship with God. Jesus (via the apostles) made this a less tribal idea. God wasn't just for one people anymore. We had to realize that God was not just for us anymore.
I also believe that there was a shift to a deeper understanding. The shift I am talking about is a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" kind of thing - although that doesn't really describe it perfectly. A sort of "you're old enough now to know why you need to be careful crossing the street instead of, 'Never cross the street because I said so!'" kind of shift.
I know that I am putting this badly... And I'm sure some of this impression is an uninformed view of the OT. It may always have been there - I just don't read it that way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bump - I'm still curious.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I have another question:
Does belief in YEC mean you also believe that humans are respobsible for Global Climate Change.
Most if not all of the evironmentalist critics have admitted evidence shows we are in a period of drastic climate change. These critics deny that Man has had any influence on what is a millenial pattern of weather change. Our smoke and SUV's are not the problem, but the 10,000 year old cycle of cold age/warm age is.
Of course, if the Universe is less than 10,000 years old, such a cycle does not exist.
I see only 4 options open to YECs:
1) Global Warming doesn't exist. The science, like much other science, despite the weight of obvious changes, is wrong.
2) We are the cause of Global Climate Change as the Scientists say, and we need to work on reducing our green house gas emissions.
3)God is the cause of Global Warming. They are a prelude to the coming tribulations. It will be just one of the ways plagues, famine, death, and war will be sprung on the world. It is our duty to aid in God's plans so the more greenhouse gasses we produce, the sooner will be the coming of the Lord.
4) Our Sins are the cause of Global Warming. They will lead to the coming tribulations of which Global Warming is part of. Global Warming will lead to some of the plagues, famines, wars, and deaths that will be sprung on the world. Yet it is our duty to fight these sins. By denying our own greed and sloth we will emit fewer greenhouse gasses. If the tribulations at the end of times must come, then let it be despite our faith, not because of it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Most of the evidence for global warming, Dan, relies on an old Earth. I'd imagine that people who are YECs either believe that global warming isn't happening at all, or that it's all part of the End Times.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The YEC point of view is that many of the postulated cycles in climate extremes may have taken place, but did so not over the course of hundreds of thousands or millions of years; but rather over the course of only decades or at most centuries, as the earth settled down from having its "bell rung" during the global catastrophe of the Flood (which may have involved multiple large meteorite strikes).
Change the level of the sea, or the positions of the continents, both of which which YEC believe occurred in the decades and centuries following the Flood, and you drastically alter the flow of oceanic currects. Were it not for the Gulf Stream flowing as far north as it does, Europe would be in an ice age now. Spain is on the same latitude as New York, and Britain is on the same latitude as Hudson Bay.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, what about the coats?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I'm also not clear on exactly where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from, if there were supposedly no other humans around other than Adam's children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots-- are you still curious about something that I need to respond to?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I think there are pretty good studies on this that suggest they could (and this is from non-YEC scientists). I think I read about them first in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Don't remember the details, and the time frame they were working on was more like 10,000 years. If you're interested I'll see if I can find the references over the weekend.
Edit: what I didn't mention is that the process (inferred) is described. There have been studies of modern linguistic drift that apparently match with the findings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: kmboots-- are you still curious about something that I need to respond to?
No. You responded. Thanks! I am still curious about Ron's response.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Go ahead, Dag. I may go ahead and read that book tonight. I'd still be interested in any references.
I don't see how you could get Finnish, Sanskrit, and the native american language families from a common mother language in anything like 10,000 years. AfAIK, linguists have found absolutely no common links from many primitive languages to each other or to Sanskrit, Hindi, any Indo-european languages, or any Sino-Tibetan language families. Linguists spend decades studying possible links, and don't find them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Dag, how do you measure language drift if two languages show absolutely no relationship to each other? Aren't you completely guessing in that case?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As I said, I don't remember the details. (BTW, Hindi and Sanskrit are both Indo-European languages - I couldn't tell if you knew that from your list of non-connected languages.)
There's no particular naturalistic reason that language arose only one time, so it may not be necessary to demonstrate drift amongst language families.
From a biblical YEC perspective, this is explained by supernatural intervention at a specific point in time, of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From a truly literalist point of view, wouldn't Babel account for it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I'm not sure I understand how human languages could have become this diverse in 6,000 years. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but...under what conditions, exactly, could that happen?
I'm also not clear on exactly where Adam and Eve's daughters-in-law came from, if there were supposedly no other humans around other than Adam's children.
Incest. Obviously.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Incest. Obviously. "
I...there....what?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Incest. Obviously. "
I...there....what?
If there are only two people on the earth and they have children, their children would have to have sex with each other or a parent in order to reproduce.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Would that not prove an inherent flaw with the Genesis story?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, because, um, GodGodGod and therefore you can't make that criticism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Would that not prove an inherent flaw with the Genesis story?
Why? Remember José and Estrellita in Heinlein's Time Enough For Love. Siblings aren't, of necessity, bad for breeding. And since God created Adam and Eve, I figure He could have jiggered the odds just a bit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Incest. Obviously. "
I...there....what?
Valid point. Incest could not have caused languages to diverge in 6000 years. My mistake. That was actually due to God doing a miracle during the whole Tower of Babel business.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, the coats thing (Luke 3:11) was not necessarily a literal command to everyone; it was a concrete example of a principle Jesus was trying to get across to the people, that genuine repentance involves more than outward profession, but involves an inward change. Such inward change will have concrete expression in how they treat others, when selfishness gives way to the agapé love of God.
Do you remember the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and asked Him what he must do to inherit eternal life (Luke 18:18)? Jesus said: "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother." (v. 20)
Then the rich young ruler said, "All these have I kept from my youth up." (v. 21)
But Jesus preached that the law was spiritual, and went way beyond outward appearance. So that the law could convict the rich younger ruler of sin, Jesus made a specific request of him, which would reveal the true state of his heart, whether he loved God above all, and his neighbor as himself, as the law truly requires. Jesus said: "Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (v. 22)
Does Jesus mean that everyone who reads the record of His words spoken here should likewise feel themselves obliged to sell everything they own and distribute it to the poor? Jesus required this of that rich young ruler. But does He require the same thing literally of everyone?
The principles He illustrated by concrete examples are to be applied to each one of us, in whatever manner is appropriate. It is not the concrete examples themselves that are to be applied to us all.
When Jesus sent out the twelve two by two to witness for Him in various places, He instructed them: "And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats." (Mark 6:8-9)
Now, those Christian disciples who to feel similarly called to go forth to witness often think of this passage, and follow the exampole of going forth teamed up in twos. But they do not feel obliged to go forth with no money or food on them. Nor do they feel they have to take with them a staff. Nor do they believe the Lord is commanding them to wear sandals. (It gets cold here in Michigan!)
There is symbolism and metaphor in Scripture, and there is also literal narrative, literal requirements (such as the Ten Commandments). But even with the literal things, we need to look deeper and see the spiritual principles involved, and make intelligent, sensible application that is appropriate. Part of the Lord's design in the things He teaches us in Scripture, is that we should develope sound judgment. That is not done just by giving us a checklist we can follow blindly, by rote. He presents things to us that challenge us to use analytical thinking, to develop our powers of abstraction and ability to draw correct parallels. I observe that people who study the Bible the way God intends, have the quality of their minds improved. Their I.Q.s will actually increase, measurably.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Incest. Obviously. "
I...there....what?
Valid point. Incest could not have caused languages to diverge in 6000 years. My mistake. That was actually due to God doing a miracle during the whole Tower of Babel business.
I dunno the Chinese have been around according to them for 6000 years. Though their written language has been uniform as of the Qin dynasty around 221 BC because the emperor demanded it, even by then there were many dialects that would more accurately be called languages. Even today there are several languages that maintain a separate identity even though Chinese people have been a civilization for centuries. There are villages that are next to each other yet have separate languages. It was not until China became a democracy or even a communist state that mandarin was declared essential for all students to learn.
Mediums of modern communication I think have slowed down English from spawning other dialects and language but if you take groups of people and isolate them from each other they will develop a separate language system very rapidly. Even quicker if they have no written records.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
A Jew and a Chinese fellow are in a bar. The Chinese guy says, "We've been around for 5000 years." The Jewish guy says, "Oh, yeah, well, we've been around for 6000 years."
The Chinese man ponders this for a moment, and then says, "Impossible. What did you eat for the first 1000 years?"
Posted by Walleo77 (Member # 9361) on :
Ok. I am a late-comer to this thread. However I will be counted with Ron Lambert in the "Yes the earth is young. Less than 10000 years anyway. Certainly less than 15000 years." Ron, your defense of YE is right on the money.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks Walleo77. I know there are plenty of like-minded others, but sometimes when greatly outnumbered by the old earthers as the debates rage on, it is hard not to feel like a Lone Ranger. Thank God for the silver bullets!
Lisa, when the Jewish guy in your story says Jews have been around for 6,000 years, is he counting Adam as the first Jew?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's a joke, Ron. Sheesh. But in a way, yes. Because Adam learned the truth from God. He taught it to his descendents, and some of them listened. Enoch, for instance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But Jesus preached that the law was spiritual, and went way beyond outward appearance. So that the law could convict the rich younger ruler of sin, Jesus made a specific request of him, which would reveal the true state of his heart, whether he loved God above all, and his neighbor as himself, as the law truly requires.
What an interesting way to look at things. Personally, I disagree. Jesus told him this not to "convict" the young man of sin, but to open his mind to happiness.
The law does not exist to condemn. It exists to enlighten.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Thank God for the silver bullets!
I didn't realize that scientists were werewolves.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've considered writing a Dark Western script for the Lone Ranger mythos. He's got a really engaging character and backstory.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, Kent Hovind likes to use wooden stakes. I prefer the silver bullets. Less splinters.
I would not say that old earth, evolutionist scientists are werewolves--rather, I think that many Dr. Jekyls are prone to turning into Mr. Hydes, if they take to its logical conclusion their teaching that humans are just advanced animals.
Lisa, are you trying to tell us that Adam, and Enoch, were circumcized? Can anyone be a Jew without being circumcized? (Men, anyway.)
I just thought of a cool question for you, Lisa. What if all Jewish males died, leaving only Jewish females? If no male Jews existed anymore, would Jews still exist?
[ December 21, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Abraham was a Jew before he was circumcized. Of course, I'm using the term "Jew" imprecisely. The knowledge Adam had, he taught to further generations. Abraham studied with Shem and Eber, as did Isaac. Jacob only studied with Eber, because Shem had died by that time.
Prior to the Revelation at Sinai, being a Jew was not hereditary. Isaac opted in; Ishmael opted out. Jacob opted in; Esau opted out.
At Sinai, God bound us together and created us as His people. You can't opt out any more, though you can opt in.
Technically, the term "Jew" (Yehudi in Hebrew, meaning "of Judah") refers either to a descendent of the tribe of Judah or an inhabitant of the kingdom of Judah. But it's the common term for us, even when it's anachronistic. I can't say Jacob was an Israelite -- he was Israel.
The terminology isn't the issue; the knowledge given from God is.
And to answer your question, Ron, it can't happen. It's as impossible a question as "What if God made a rock so heavy that He Himself could not lift it." Though since you're Jewish if your mother is, I can't see why this would be an issue anyway. It would, however, mean that Jews born from that point on would be tribeless, and we'd have no Kohanim or Leviim.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think that many Dr. Jekyls are prone to turning into Mr. Hydes, if they take to its logical conclusion their teaching that humans are just advanced animals.
I'm intrigued by this. Ron, if you thought you were just an advanced animal, what would you do differently?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I just thought of a cool question for you, Lisa. What if all Jewish males died, leaving only Jewish females? If no male Jews existed anymore, would Jews still exist?
this strikes me as being a horrible question.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Ever read Y: The Last Man? It's a comic put out by Vertigo (DC) in which every male mammal in the world dies suddenly, all at once. Except for this guy Yorick Brown and his pet (male) monkey, Ampersand.
It is not a gigglefest. And -- waah -- it's almost over.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
See, Ron. I think that is a very good answer. Very reasonable. I apply that kind of reasonablness to the OT and Revelations. I think they are meant to illustrate larger truths, not that they are meant to be understood literally.
Where you are I really differ, though (I think) is in where literalism matters. From a theological standpoint, it is a matter of mild curiousity when the earth was created or in what order. The answers to questions like, "what are the signs of the Rapture?" or even "was Mary a biological virgin?" would be met by a response of "hmmm...that's interesting" from me.
In contrast, questions like, "does Jesus really expect us to give to everyone who asks of us?" and "how do I define my "need" verses what I should be giving away in a way that Jesus would endorse" or "am I really supposed to believe that doing something (or failing to do it) for 'the least of these' is the same as doing something (or failing to do it) for Jesus?" - for me these are the questions that matter. The answers of these questions are the ones that can change the world. Can bring about God's will on earth "as it is in Heaven".
Posted by fiddle_stix (Member # 9941) on :
hi walleo Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: See, Ron. I think that is a very good answer. Very reasonable. I apply that kind of reasonablness to the OT and Revelations. I think they are meant to illustrate larger truths, not that they are meant to be understood literally.
Or perhaps John LITERALLY saw those things, and how those images are rightly translated into literal events is the challenge of the whole thing.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Ron, do you believe a person's salvation is dependent upon their acceptance or rejection of YEC dogma? This is an honest question, I can't figure out whether you view it as vital or not to a person's salvation.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by fiddle_stix: hi walleo
I am singlehandedly bringing the population of Hatrack up. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've considered writing a Dark Western script for the Lone Ranger mythos. He's got a really engaging character and backstory.
Ohhhh ... cool.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Lest the main point of the thread be forgotten: Vaaaaarves! Posted by Walleo77 (Member # 9361) on :
Originally posted by fiddle_stix: hi walleo
Posted by Walleo77 (Member # 9361) on :
Hi fiddle_stix
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not that I would ever dream of going the ad hom route, or (heaven forbid!) trolling. No, no, I stick strictly to the facts and the reasoning. An argument is not at fault for being made by people of sub-optimal intelligence; either it's sound in and of itself, or it isn't.
But still, I do find it interesting that of the two creationists in this thread, the one who talks like a sock puppet is apparently unable to figure out how quoting works.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But still, I do find it interesting that of the two creationists in this thread, the one who talks like a sock puppet is apparently unable to figure out how quoting works.
Heh. I think it comes from his time spent over on Ornery, where several particularly annoying people refuse to use quoting as a matter of... well, just to be annoying, I think.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Lisa, you said: "At Sinai, God bound us together and created us as His people. You can't opt out any more, though you can opt in." This reads like a Jewish version of "Once saved, always saved."
kmboots: Good thoughts. Not to imply that I am any closer, but I think you are probably not far from the kingdom.
Scott R, is your "Dark Western script for the Lone Ranger mythos" anything like Stephen King's Dark Tower stories? The words just seemed evocative.
Tom, if I believed I were just an advanced animal, then I would have no reason to care about right and wrong, not really. I would only about care about the chances of getting caught and risk vs. benefits.
Hitoshi, I would not consider rejection of the YEC (Young Earth Creationist) view as a permanent barrier to being saved. But it might increase the odds against developing faith in God. Truth that rightly represents God's character always improves a person's chances that he or she will make the right choices in order to be saved; and few things misrepresent God's character more than believing He would use something as violent and bloody and pitiless as evolution to create life.
One of the other chief things that misrepresents God's character and turns multitudes away from having faith in God is the doctrine of eternal torment in an everlasting hellfire. The Bible makes it clear that ultimately sin and all who cling to it will be eradicated from the universe. There will not be some remote, shunned corner of the universe where the wicked will be eternally tormented, cursing (thus continuing to sin). Even Satan will be burned up, and cease to exist. God addressed these words to Satan (Lucifer), the real power behind the throne of the king of Tyre: "...I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." (Ezekiel 28:18, 19.) The one to whom these words were addressed is also the one who was said to have been "in Eden, the garden of God," and to have been one of "the anointed cherub that covereth." (See verses 13, 14.)
[ December 22, 2006, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, if I believed I were just an advanced animal, then I would have no reason to care about right and wrong, not really. I would only about care about the chances of getting caught and risk vs. benefits.
Really? Why do you think so? I, for example, believe that I am merely an advanced animal, and yet believe firmly that I have plenty of reasons to care about right and wrong. Do you not think that you'd be as capable as I am of developing a logical moral framework?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, if you think you are no more than an advanced animal, and that God no where enters the picture, then any sense of morality you have is the result of having been raised to be moral. But there is in fact no logical reason for you to be moral. Those who follow after you, and are led to believe as you believe, who have not had the moral uprbringing you had, will turn out quite differently than you have. They will manifest no restraint, where you have restraint. They will push the envelope of what they can get away with. The concept of what is right and what is wrong will be without meaning to them.
I recognize and admit that this would be true of me. And I dare suggest we share the same nature.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:But there is in fact no logical reason for you to be moral.
Wrong; there are plenty, starting with "I prefer not to live in the kind of society that immoral people build". You should note that both my parents, as far as I know, are atheists; certainly they never mentioned any gods to me. So I'm the second generation of considering myself as an advanced animal. Yet somehow, I don't seem to have raped or killed anyone. Odd, that.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But there is in fact no logical reason for you to be moral.
Wrong; there are plenty, starting with "I prefer not to live in the kind of society that immoral people build". You should note that both my parents, as far as I know, are atheists; certainly they never mentioned any gods to me. So I'm the second generation of considering myself as an advanced animal. Yet somehow, I don't seem to have raped or killed anyone. Odd, that.
<clap clap>
Have you ever heard of atheists killing people because they were religious? Because I have. Also KOM I seriously doubt you are calling yourself the pinnacle of human ethics, certainly even the most well behaved atheist is not perfect. Though I think it would be interesting to compare a well behaved atheist to a well behaved theist and see what they are like.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you said: "At Sinai, God bound us together and created us as His people. You can't opt out any more, though you can opt in." This reads like a Jewish version of "Once saved, always saved."
Quite the contrary. Jews have more obligations than non-Jews; opting in is accepting those obligations, but there is no way to get out of them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Have you ever heard of atheists killing people because they were religious?
Yes, you've heard of it. Because the Christian apologists tend to publicise those incidents, and completely gloss over the very strong resemblance between Communism and your average religion. Pol Pot wasn't killing people so much because they were religious, but because they had the wrong religion; which is an old and hallowed tradition. Which, in fact, brings me to my point: What you don't hear so much about is theists killing atheists, because that's not news. That's olds. It's "dog bites man". It's been going on for two thousand years, and in fact would be continuing still if not for the nice little civil war between competing theists called the Reformation, which gave us our chance. With atheists, it's worthy of note when they start retaliating; with theists, it's their ordinary mode of existence, enshrined in holy books and kept at bay only by the armed truce that we laughingly call "religious tolerance". That is why atheists are morally superior.
quote:Also KOM I seriously doubt you are calling yourself the pinnacle of human ethics, certainly even the most well behaved atheist is not perfect.
Not relevant, that's not the discussion we were having. The question was, "Are you a moral person", not "Are you perfect". If you're going to bring in that kind of strawman, count me out of the discussion. And further, I am in fact morally superior to any theist you care to name, just by virtue of being willing to look the damn facts in the eye and defy them to do their worst.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But there is in fact no logical reason for you to be moral.
This is absolutely untrue. In fact, I've been engaged for some time on another forum laying out what is ultimately a logical, materialistic case for some form of shared morality.
People who claim that religion is necessary for a logical morality confuse authority with logic. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Perhaps it is relevant to consider the difference between ethical behavior and moral behavior.
The ethical man knows it is wrong to sleep with his friend's wife. The moral man will not sleep with his friend's wife.
Everyone thinks their ethics are their morals, until they are tested. Then and only then are their real morals revealed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Quite the contrary. Jews have more obligations than non-Jews; opting in is accepting those obligations, but there is no way to get out of them.
But Rivka, if someone has opted to be Jewish, and he can never opt out, then why bother to follow all those obligations? This is in essence the same question with which many of us brace certain Baptists, who claim that once they are saved they are always saved: Why should they bother to do good and resist evil?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Rivka, if someone has opted to be Jewish, and he can never opt out, then why bother to follow all those obligations? This is in essence the same question with which many of us brace certain Baptists, who claim that once they are saved they are always saved: Why should they bother to do good and resist evil? [/QB]
In the case of the Baptists, you have a point; but for the Jew, the answer is much simpler: He doesn't get into Heaven (whatever it is they call the good afterlife) just by being a Jew, he needs to follow those obligations. You can't become an un-Jew by not doing so, but you can become a bad Jew. No Chinese food!
quote:The ethical man knows it is wrong to sleep with his friend's wife. The moral man will not sleep with his friend's wife.
What's your point? Cut to the chase: Which one are you accusing atheists of not having?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now, let's be fair: it's entirely possible that Ron would be sleeping with another man's wife right now if not for his belief in God.
I wouldn't be, but that's only because I'm a moral person.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But still, I do find it interesting that of the two creationists in this thread, the one who talks like a sock puppet is apparently unable to figure out how quoting works.
KoM, if you're talking about Walleo, I know this is a futile gesture, but lay off. On some things you know a massive amount and are even sometimes able to articulate gracefully, but on others you are woefully ignorant. The man known as Walleo is one of those things, and as someone who does know him quite well, I'm asking you as nice as I possibly can to curb your tongue and be respectful, if not of his beliefs, as least of him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott R, is your "Dark Western script for the Lone Ranger mythos" anything like Stephen King's Dark Tower stories? The words just seemed evocative.
No. Well, honestly, I should say, "I don't know, never having read the Dark Tower series."
But it would not be a fantasy. It'd be a straight up western.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ron,
quote: if you think you are no more than an advanced animal, and that God no where enters the picture, then any sense of morality you have is the result of having been raised to be moral.
I believe that I am an advanced animal and that morality is not derived from God.
On the other hand, I get your point that much of what I believe to be morally correct I got from my parents who are (still) theists, Christians, and more specifically Mormon. I cannot with certainty tell you which of my "logical moral beliefs" are hold-overs from my religious upbringing, but neither can you tell me with certainty which of your "religious moral beliefs" actually arose from God rather than arose as a natural product of evolution-born intelligence only to eventually have God tacked on as an authority to which one could appeal when logic proved inadequate to persuade.
You are right about moral upbringing, however. If the next generation isn't taught the inherent value of living a moral life, they will continually push the envelope without questioning or restraint. I, too, see destruction, chaos, and anarchy down that path. Where we differ is that I believe morality can be taught to intelligent people without appeal to Divine Authority.
quote:Those who follow after you, and are led to believe as you believe, who have not had the moral uprbringing you had, will turn out quite differently than you have. They will manifest no restraint, where you have restraint. They will push the envelope of what they can get away with. The concept of what is right and what is wrong will be without meaning to them.
The great irony, though, is that I know an awful lot of people who live seemingly amoral existences, and each one of them professes to believe in God. I know quite a few atheists, too, who live very morally. So I don't think it is rejecting God as an authority (i.e. atheism) that is creating this generation with a "what can I get away with" mentality who "follow after". Rather it is a lack of parents passing on moral values in general. Oddly the vast majority of these failed parents are self-proclaimed theists, and in America at least, self-proclaimed Christians.
[EDIT TO ADD: Don't think I'm simply trading the blame for the lack of morals in the next generation from atheists to Christians. I'm placing the blame squarely on the shoulders of parents who don't live what they profess to believe, regardless of whether that is derived from God or not.
[ December 23, 2006, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not that I would ever dream of going the ad hom route, or (heaven forbid!) trolling. No, no, I stick strictly to the facts and the reasoning. An argument is not at fault for being made by people of sub-optimal intelligence; either it's sound in and of itself, or it isn't.
But still, I do find it interesting that of the two creationists in this thread, the one who talks like a sock puppet is apparently unable to figure out how quoting works.
and yet you go Ad hominem oh so frequently.
Posted by Walleo77 (Member # 9361) on :
Dr Strangelove, do you think he was actually talking about me? A sock puppet? And I thought that I was only agreeing with someone. I didn't realize that by agreeing with someone it put me in the precarious position of having someones hand up my but wait. A sock. That would mean that there would be a hand shoved DOWN and then for me to communicate turn me upside down. A most disturbing position indeed. Also, my apologies to kom for my ignorance of how to use the website tools. Perhaps with someone elses help I will be able to use them correctly.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And further, I am in fact morally superior to any theist you care to name, just by virtue of being willing to look the damn facts in the eye and defy them to do their worst.
And I certainly won't throw any facts your way either. It would be foolish to throw facts at someone only to have them ignored.
Oh well, time to go. I have a twin to look for.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I don't know if he was referring to you or not old man ( ). I was in something of a volatile mood last night, and as there was a 50% chance of him referring to you, I took him up on it.
Now you've got me curious as to the twin. I'll ask you tomorrow (you will be at church tomorrow, at least for the evening, right?).
(If we try hard enough, we might be able to derail even this thread. 17 pages is a hard task, but we can try )
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
it looks already derailed.
and the twin... he is a sock, so i presume he means he must find the other half of the pair.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
D'oh! Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lisa, you said: "At Sinai, God bound us together and created us as His people. You can't opt out any more, though you can opt in." This reads like a Jewish version of "Once saved, always saved."
That's because, no surprise, you're insisting on looking at God and the Torah through Christian colored lenses.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Quite the contrary. Jews have more obligations than non-Jews; opting in is accepting those obligations, but there is no way to get out of them.
But Rivka, if someone has opted to be Jewish, and he can never opt out, then why bother to follow all those obligations?
That's a very strange question. It makes no sense at all. We follow those obligations because God commanded us to.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is in essence the same question with which many of us brace certain Baptists, who claim that once they are saved they are always saved: Why should they bother to do good and resist evil?
What does "being saved" have to do with doing what's right? I see your point with regard to Baptists, if that's what they really say, and if you're not misprepresenting them (which given the way you misrepresent the Torah, isn't such a stretch). If going to heaven is the be all and end all of what humanity is about, and if you've got a lock on that, why not party till you drop and do whatever the hell you want?
But what on earth does that have to do with what Rivka and I are talking about? It's like I say that oranges have peels, and you say, "Well, then why do bicycles have chains?" It's an utter non sequitur.
Obviously there's some connection in your mind. You're reading some sort of assumption into what we're saying, or something like that, and you're hearing us say something that we're not saying. I'd ask you to clarify, but I'm honestly so tired of hearing you go on that I'm not going to.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But Rivka, if someone has opted to be Jewish, and he can never opt out, then why bother to follow all those obligations? This is in essence the same question with which many of us brace certain Baptists, who claim that once they are saved they are always saved: Why should they bother to do good and resist evil?
In the case of the Baptists, you have a point; but for the Jew, the answer is much simpler: He doesn't get into Heaven (whatever it is they call the good afterlife) just by being a Jew, he needs to follow those obligations. You can't become an un-Jew by not doing so, but you can become a bad Jew. No Chinese food!
Thank you, KoM. Honest to God, Ron, when King of Men gets us (even if he doesn't agree) and it's still opaque to you, it means you're just not listening.
Edit: And KoM, we have chinese food. There are two kosher chinese places within a 5 minute drive from where I'm sitting and typing this.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
and i do believe that the idea of "once saved always saved" that christian denominations have is based on the beliefe that if you are truely repantant and truely become a christian you will not commit these sins anymore, or at least to a much lesser degree. Many people seem to however think that it gives free liscence to do as they please since they have their "future" secure.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
ahemRomansahem
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I like chinese food.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Edit: And KoM, we have chinese food. There are two kosher chinese places within a 5 minute drive from where I'm sitting and typing this.
I meant, for the bad Jews, as in, "Bad X, no cookie!"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The world thinks I'm wrong about all kinds of things. So?
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
KarlEd
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dan
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)